Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND 1964–65

Accounts ordered
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1964–65, showing (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1965, and (2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. "—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

VC10 Aircraft (Middle East Airlines)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about the successful conclusion of an order for VC10 aircraft from Middle East Airlines.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Aviation why he was unable to complete the VC10 deal with Middle East Airlines.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): We kept in the closest touch with B.A.C. and with Middle East Airlines throughout the negotiations, and were prepared to offer substantial financial support. It ultimately became apparent however that the cost of securing the order would be so great as to be unjustified.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I recognise the difficulties in negotiating this contract and the very useful part played by the Parliamentary Secretary, but is it not a fact that the day before the final negotiations were due to be concluded the Government announced the cancellation of

the investment allowances and this had a material effect on the British Aircraft Corporation in trying to make a concession which might have brought useful export orders to Britain?

Mr. Mulley: The change in investment allowances had no bearing on the proposal the Government were considering, which was for a sale of aircraft and involved a loan by them to the M.E.A. and finance to the company. It was a deal for a direct export sale. Therefore, no question of investment allowance arose.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the Minister aware of the great admiration for the Parliamentary Secretary and the hard work he did in trying to arrange this deal? Is he also aware that the right hon. Gentleman's failure to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to provide credit for this sale has damaged and depressed the sales effort of the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful for the fully deserved tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I cannot accept that the failure to give investment credit terms in this instance damaged our industry or our export prospects.

Boeing 707–336 Freighters (Certificate of Airworthiness)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Aviation what difficulties have been encountered in granting a British certificate of airworthiness for the two British Overseas Airways Corporation Boeing 707–336 freighters; and when these aircraft will be in regular service.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 freighters fully conformed with current British civil airworthiness requirements at the time when they were granted a certificate of airworthiness by the Air Registration Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Air Registration Board has granted a full certificate of airworthiness for British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 aircraft.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house): When this aircraft type was flight


tested by the Air Registration Board for a British certificate of airworthiness, certain features were found unacceptable for certification. After these features had been rectified to the satisfaction of the Board, a transport category certificate of airworthiness was issued.
The first aircraft was put into service on 14th January and the second on 28th January.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that what he has said does not square with information I have received from the professional pilots association that the regulations have been relaxed in reference to the Boeing aircraft? Can he imagine the United States relaxing their regulations for British exports to their country? Will he bear in mind that where lives are concerned it is just as important for the crew to be safeguarded as for the 100 passengers sitting behind the crew?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that the A.R.B. did its job in this case and did it well. As the House will recognise, this is not a new aircraft type. The 336 is practically identical with the 320 which has been flying for a great many years and has been certificated by the American authorities. I do not think we have any cause to complain about the activities of the A.R.B. in this case.

Mr. Onslow: Is it still not a fact that the Board first refused a certificate and then, after receiving certain representations and after a telephone canvass of its available members, changed its decision? Is it not unfortunate that the Board should apparently have made a concession for an American aircraft which in the past it has refused for an aircraft of British manufacture?

Mr. Stonehouse: It is correct that originally there were features about this aircraft which the A.R.B. found unacceptable and it had these changed before the aircraft were flown here. Certain other modifications were made to the aircraft before it was allowed to fly with B.O.A.C.

Mr. Lubbock: When similar difficulties were encountered with a British aircraft, did not the Air Registration Board insist on boundary layer fences, and should it not have done the same with the 336?

Mr. Stonehouse: The procedures followed by the A. R. B. with the American aircraft were similar to those with the VC10 and the BAC111. I think the A. R. B. did a good job in this case.

Mr. R. Carr: Does the Minister realise that there is genuine disquiet on this point? Will he consider some way of putting before us, either by a longer statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in some other way, a blow by blow account of what happened here?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, I am quite prepared to give the details of the unacceptable features which the A.R.B. had to have corrected. I am quite prepared to do that and will write to the hon. Members who have raised this point with me.

Gatwick Airport (Training Flights)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Aviation in view of the need to reduce aircraft noise at Gatwick, if he will ban training flights there from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and reduce training flights by day by diverting some of these to airports that are not being asked, as Gatwick is, to take the night traffic overspill from Heathrow.

Mr. Stonehouse: Training flights are already banned between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. save in exceptional circumstances. There are other restrictions on training flying, and I do not think these need to be increased at present.

Sir G. Sinclair: Is the Minister aware that Gatwick Airport is now being used for training flights by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Air Force, B.O.A. C., B.E.A., and British United Airways? Will he take steps to reduce this unnecessary addition to the growing intensity of traffic and noise that Gatwick is receiving now that the Minister has limited the density of flights at Heathrow?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am quite prepared to consider any suggestion for the use of airports in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I think that it is quite acceptable that an airport like Gatwick must be used for training flights for pilots who have to familiarise themselves with procedures at an airport which is being used in this way.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that he will not transfer these training flights back to Heathrow?

Mr. Stonehouse: Heathrow is already so congested that I very much doubt whether we could find the time or the space for these aircraft to be used there.

Black Arrow Satellite Launcher

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now proceed rapidly with Black Arrow launcher; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: Work in industry on the Black Arrow satellite launcher is continuing, but a decision to proceed with a full development programme must depend on the wider consideration which is being given to our space programme.

Mr. Marten: How long has this project been on a holding contract? Can the Minister tell us what is the cause of the delay behind this decision? If it is decided to go ahead, what does the Minister envisage the ultimate use of the Black Arrow to be?

Mr. Mulley: I would not accept that there has been undue delay in this matter, nor is it true to say that the work has been held up by the lack of a full development contract. The main purpose of the Black Arrow will be of a scientific research character.

Space Programme

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation when he will announce a definite British national space programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: I am responsible only for certain aspects of the space programme. This is at present under review and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Marten: Does not the Minister realise that the Government's complete lack of a space programme is doing enormous damage to this highly technological advance? Can he tell the House when there is any chance of getting a space programme? The Minister is to go to the E.L.D.O. meeting at the end of March. Will he state whether it is the Government's wish and hope that they should remain in E.L.D.O.?

Mr. Mulley: On the second point, there have been extensions of the timetable and technical difficulties in E.L.D.O. which have considerably increased the cost of the programme. It is for these reasons that it was desired, I think by many members of E.L.D.O., that there should be a Ministerial review at the end of March. On the question of a national space programme, the Black Arrow consideration is obviously part of that, but it is also a matter of relating our national and European commitments in this field.

Sir J. Eden: Would not the Minister agree that the definition of the British national space programme is made the more difficult so long as there is not a single Minister of the Crown responsible for it? What discussions are now taking place between himself and his right hon. Friends to determine who shall define the British national space programme?

Mr. Mulley: This Government have followed the practice of the previous Government in dividing responsibility for space matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for the E.S.R.O. part of the programme. I am responsible for E.L.D.O. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is also involved. In any complicated field of this character there will inevitably be across-the-board responsibilities between Ministers.

Captain W. Elliot: Will the Minister consider as a first step approaching the Americans with a view to attaching British astronauts to the American space-training unit? Would he not agree that there are many Britons of courage and enterprise who would welcome this and that it would be beneficial to the possible future space programme of our own and to Anglo-American relations?

Mr. Mulley: That is an interesting suggestion, but we should have to wait to see whether the United States had the same interest in it as the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Lubbock: In view of the enormous cost of this space programme, would it not be better to proceed by way of cooperation with our European allies than to embark on a separate British space programme? Will the Minister, therefore, do his best to ensure that the E.L.D.O. programme is continued and strengthened?

Mr. Mulley: This is exactly what I had in mind when, in answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), I said that it was necessary to relate our national and our European efforts. We do want to see a viable European programme, but it is a matter for further discussion whether the existing E.L.D.O. programmes are the best ways of achieving this.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Are not our resources sufficiently strained by what we are doing on this world without travelling outside it, and are we not sufficiently attached to the Americans on this world without attaching them to ourselves outside it?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is asking a rhetorical question. I rather think he is.

Renfrew Airport

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Minister of Aviation what was the visibility on the main runway at Renfrew at the moment of take-off of Flight BEA 5043 on Monday 24th January; and what are the minimum standards prescribed.

Mr. Stonehouse: The runway visual range at Renfrew when flight BE 5043 took off on Monday, 24th January, was 450 metres; B.E.A. 's take-off weather minima for day-time take-off for the Vanguard at Renfrew are zero cloud ceiling and 140 metres runway visual range.

Miss Harvie Anderson: While thanking the Minister for that only partially reassuring reply and emphasising the public confidence in British pilots, may I ask him whether he can give the House the further reassurance that no pilot's promotion prospects are handicapped by such diversionary landings or take-offs as he may have judged it necessary to make being taken into account?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am quite sure that B. E. A. does not in any way handicap the promotion of any pilot who is controlling the aircraft in the best interests of safety.

Australia and New Zealand (Parliamentary Secretary's Visit)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on

the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend attended the opening of the Mangere Airport at Auckland at which the BAC 111 and the SRN5 Hovercraft were demonstrated. In both New Zealand and Australia he had useful talks with Ministers and airline chairmen about the prospects of Britain meeting their aircraft requirements.

Mr. Rankin: How far did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary prosper in his attempt to effect the sales of aircraft during the course of this journey, particularly the BAC 111?

Mr. Mulley: As a result of my hon. Friend's visit, I think that our prospects of selling aircraft, particularly the BAC 111, in that part of the world have been much improved. As my hon. Friend will realise, one does not sell a complicated and expensive item like an aircraft in a matter of two or three days. Inevitably long negotiations will be involved.

Mr. R. Carr: While welcoming the efforts to sell civil aircraft, may I ask whether there have been any discussions on the sales of military aircraft; or is it that we have none to sell?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend discussed the prospects of military aircraft, but so far there have been no developments.

Private Pilots (Information Circulars)

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to ensure wider knowledge among private pilots regarding the availability of information circulars from the Aeronautical Information Service.

Mr. Stonehouse: None, Sir. Every candidate for a private pilot's licence is examined in his knowledge of "The Air Pilot", a Ministry publication which sets out particulars of the Aeronautical Information Service including the availability of civil aviation information circulars.

Mr. Page: In view of the value of these circulars, particularly to pilots who are not regular members of clubs and who do not put in a great number of flying hours, would it not be advisable to issue a reminder with each re-issue of a licence?

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank my hon. Friend for that acknowledgement of the value of these circulars. We will certainly take into account the suggestion he has made.

Heathrow Airport (Night Flying)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will impose a silent period in respect of night landings and take-offs from London Airport, Heath row.

Mr. Mulley: I have sympathy for this suggestion. But bearing in mind the penalties which would be involved for air travellers, for freight traffic and for the airlines, I am afraid I cannot add to the severe restrictions already in force.

Mr. Jenkins: Will not my right hon. Friend accept that severer restrictions than these are imposed by most other airports in most other parts of the world, especially those near capitals? Does he sleep with his windows open? Will he stop forcing my constituents to choose between being suffocated and being deafened?

Mr. Mulley: I am afraid that it is inevitable that those living near airports will suffer from noise. The problem is to strike a balance between the claims of the users of air transport, on the one hand, and local residents, on the other. I do not accept that other capital cities have the kind of ban for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Hogg: As one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who is most affected, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the nuisance?

Mr. Mulley: This is inevitably a question of in which part of my hon. Friend's constituency a particular resident happens to live.

Air Corporation Pilots (Flying Hours)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation what were the average monthly hours flown by pilots of British European Airways and the British Over seas Airways Corporation, respectively, in respect of scheduled routes; and what are the permitted monthly flying hours.

Mr. Storehouse: Latest available figures show that B.E.A. pilots on scheduled services average 42 flying hours per month, while the average for B.O.A.C. pilots is 45 flying hours per month. The maximum flying hours permitted by law are 115 hours in 28 consecutive days.

Mr. Shepherd: As these flying hours are measurably below the level which obtains in the United States, which has an excellent safety record, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that we are justified in going to the enormous expense of training a large number of new pilots when there is under-employment of the existing force?

Mr. Stonehouse: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this point was dealt with in a reply to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 1st December last. We are satisfied that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are running the Corporations in the best interests of the public and of safety.

Airline Corporations (Employees)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation how many persons are employed per active aircraft by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively.

Mr. Mulley: 185 and 408 respectively.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Pan-Am, which is a comparable airline, employs only 200 persons against 408 by B.O.A.C? In view of the fact that labour shortage is the biggest problem facing this country, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to put this matter right?

Mr. Mulley: It is always a little dangerous to make a comparison of this sort between one airline and another, because the sizes of aircraft and the route patterns vary so much. It certainly would not be fair to compare B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. on this basis, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intends that. B.O.A.C. has made rapid progress in increasing the number of hours flown and the reduction of staff', and I am sure that this programme is going on.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say how the safety record of


British aircraft compares with the safety record of American aircraft?

Mr. Mulley: While we should not be complacent, we can say that we have an exceptionally high record of safety with British aircraft, but I could not give figures without notice.

Turnhouse Airport

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Aviation what instructions are given to captains of aircraft with regard to landing at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, when a wind is blowing across the runway.

Mr. Mulley: B.E.A. imposes no limitations peculiar to Turnhouse airport; nor, as far as I know, does any other operator. Normally the captain has discretion in this regard within the limits appropriate to the aircraft as indicated by the airworthiness authority and by the operator of the aircraft.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the incident which took place at the end of January in which an aircraft had to make two attempts to get down, with the strain imposed on the pilots because of the cross-wind and the alarm caused to passengers? Is it going to take an accident involving deaths before the Department is prepared to come to an agreement with Edinburgh Corporation to build another runway?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is using rather strong language. I do not accept that the cross-wind problem is a matter of concern from the safety point of view. The position is that B.E.A., for example, lays down a maximum cross-wind component of 25 knots and advises the pilot that he should not land in those conditions unless he has 1,000 ft. available beyond the normal landing run. A lower cross-wind figure is imposed in wet and slippery conditions. I appreciate the problems which a cross-wind causes to these aircraft but I would not say that these were serious considerations.

Mr. Monro: As the existing runway is 90 degrees from the prevailing wind, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that nearly every landing at Turnhouse has an unnecessary additional hazard?

Mr. Mulley: On the figures which I have been able to obtain, only 1 per cent. of actual and planned flights have been diverted or cancelled because of cross-winds. Most of the diversions have been on account of other factors, principally bad visibility.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will speed up the construction of a second runway at Turnhouse, in view of the encouraging figures of traffic expansion.

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the traffic expansion justifies provision of a new runway at Edinburgh at present, but I will keep the matter under review.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: That is a rather disappointing reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in spite of previous Answers this afternoon, there is a safety aspect in this matter? Will be give further attention to it before accepting the situation as satisfactory?

Mr. Mulley: A new runway would cost between £2 million and £3 million and I therefore have to be satisfied that the traffic justifies it. Certainly I accept that in the long term a second runway is necessary, and my predecessor has already assured the Corporation that this is so, and when the time comes financial provision will be made towards it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several years ago the Toothill Committee recommended that air transport facilities between Scotland and the South should be very much improved, but that the previous Administration did absolutely nothing about it? Will my right hon. Friend set the country a better example than they did?

Mr. Mulley: I appreciate that important problems, like those of many of my colleagues, were not made easier by the legacy which we inherited.

New London Airport

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make inquiries into the long-term possibility of establishing a new London airport near the Thames Estuary to replace Heathrow and Gatwick.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir.

Mr. Royle: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in view of both the noise aspect and, more important, the inter-line aspect of operating from three major London airports? Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of building a large single airport out in the Thames Estuary to replace Gatwick and Heathrow in 20 years' time?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that I should comment on the suitability of the Thames Estuary, because this is one of the matters which was considered by the public inquiry which was recently concluded, the report of which I have yet to receive. On the question of moving Heathrow and Gatwick the hon. Gentleman must recognise that considerable amounts of public money have been involved in these airfields, and I find it difficult to see that it would be economically justifiable to contemplate their replacement.

Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his original Answer will give considerable reassurance? Will he keep in mind that the Interdepartmental Committee on a third London Airport revealed considerable objections to an airfield in this area? Will he keep those objections firmly before him?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend must understand that while I am awaiting the report of the public inquiry, which went into these matters at great length and in great detail, it would be most improper of me to offer observations on the relative merits of the arguments.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is necessary to divert some of this noise away from London, in spite of the fact that some of us have constituents who are less sensitive than others?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure how far that supplementary question was directed to me. My hon. Friend will know that the reason for building up Gatwick and the consideration being given to a third airport is a desire not to exceed reasonable traffic conditions at Heathrow.

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Aviation if he has come to a decision on the location of a new London airport.

Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir. The public inquiry into the proposal to develop Stansted as the third London Airport ended last Friday, and a decision will only be taken in the light of the report submitted in due course by the inspector.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the possibility of the location of an airport on the periphery of the south-east border of the Greater London Council area is not being considered?

Mr. Stonehouse: If any proposal is considered and put forward to the Ministry, that proposal will be subject to the same sort of appeal and investigation procedure as adopted at Stansted.

Bonn (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his predecessor's recent visit to Bonn.

Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and Federal German Ministers resolved that both Governments should collaborate in partnership with other countries in the aerospace field. Discussion ranged over a number of particular items of joint interest, including space research, civil transport aircraft, military aircraft and guided missiles. Possibilities for Anglo-German co-operation, and participation in joint projects within a European framework, are being pursued in further studies and discussions.

Mr. Mills: Could the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what it was that his predecessor advised the European consortium regarding the rôle of Short and Harlands in the development of the VFW 614?

Mr. Mulley: Discussions have been going on for some time between the German firm and Shorts and also Hawker Siddeley. The respective parts which might be played by these two United Kingdom airframe firms remain to be settled since the discussions are still continuing.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If Anglo-German production of guided missiles was discussed, as the Minister says, is not this getting nearer and nearer making Germany a nuclear Power? How much nearer can we get?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend must realise that it is possible and desirable to have guided missiles without a nuclear component. I can assure him that discussions which are still going on in this field pay full regard to the position of the German Government under the Brussels Treaty.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, with reference to the Question, that those whose work is in jeopardy at Shorts will need a much more detailed and perhaps franker exposition of what happened at Bonn than we have had so far?

Mr. Mulley: I am reserving further remarks for the three or four further Questions on this matter on the Order Paper from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Commercial Services, Scotland

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to empower him to give financial guarantees to commercial airlines in order to encourage them to develop services to cities in Scotland already possessing an airstrip.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. Subject to licensing, this is a matter for commercial enterprise.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Planning Council has re-examined the scope for air services to Dundee? Is he further aware that, without a guarantee of the kind suggested in my Question, no such service will be forthcoming?

Mr. Mulley: It would be a wrong policy for there to be subsidy of civil air services of the kind the hon. Gentleman refers to. While I sympathise with Dundee's desire for such a development, unfortunately airline operators have not accepted that the traffic is adequate in view of the cost. However, an independent operator, Strathallan Air Services, has applied for a licence for scheduled services between Dundee, Edinburgh and Prestwick and we must see what the outcome is of that application.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend keep closely in mind the fact that B. E. A. is running many uneconomic internal air services in Scotland?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot answer that point today because, as my hon. Friend will perhaps know, B.E.A. has lodged an appeal against the Air Transport Licensing Board's decision not to increase fares on the Highlands and Islands services. I cannot, therefore, express a view until I have the report of the Commissioner's inquiry.

Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the programme of development and research at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Alder maston, will ensure the continued useful employment of the staff and facilities of this establishment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: I am responsible only for the military work undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority at Aldermaston. The Authority announced two years ago that the staff required for this work would fall gradually over a period of years. I understand that the Authority expects to achieve this reduction by natural wastage. Facilities will continue to be used at Aldermaston in the most effective manner that the special circumstances of the establishment permit.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of anxiety locally and a suspicion that the Government intend to run down the facilities at Aldermaston? Can he get together with the Minister of Technology to develop a programme that will ensure the continued useful employment of the qualified staff and the facilities there?

Mr. Mulley: I accept the need to maintain the staff at Aldermaston if possible and I undertake to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Transatlantic Flights (Safety Standards)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied with the safety standards at present prevailing on transatlantic flights; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: The International Civil Aviation Organisation decided last year to reduce the minimum lateral


separation applicable to air traffic over the North Atlantic from 120 to 90 nautical miles. Accordingly we and the other countries responsible for air traffic control in the North Atlantic area put the decision into effect on 13th January.
A number of pilots are continuing to ask for the old separation standard to be applied to their particular flights. When they do so they are being allocated flight paths which provide this but at a lower altitude than the normal since it is impracticable with complete safety to apply different separation standards at the same altitude.
In view of the pilots requests the matter has been reported to I.C.A.O. In the meantime I am fully satisfied that adequate safety standards are being maintained.

Mr. Onslow: Is it not still the case that this separation is thought by many pilots to increase the risks of mid-air collisions. Will the hon. Gentleman at least agree to receive a deputation from pilots' organisations to discuss this further?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are satisfied that the standards are adequate for safety. There is no doubt in our minds about that. But, in view of the concern expressed by the pilots, I will, of course, agree to meet them and discuss it.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend also note that the British Airline Pilots' Association is unanimously opposing this change in the distance between aircraft crossing the Atlantic?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are well aware of that. Where a pilot in charge of an aircraft demands to have a 120-mile separation we will allocate it to him, providing that he flies at 28,000 ft. Above 29,000 ft. the I.C.A.O. standard will apply.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will publish a White Paper stating the Government's proposals for the future of the aircraft industry with particular reference to the industry's need for a balanced programme of development projects and long-term objectives, the short-term measures required to overcome the dislocation caused by the cancellation of previous projects and the

steps to be taken to promote further development of collaboration with Europe.

Mr. Mulley: I will consider this proposal.

Mr. Carr: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's most welcome assertion in the debate on the Plowden Report, that they want Britain to have an advanced aircraft industry, simply will not carry conviction at home or abroad until the industry is given a programme for the future which will fill the present vacuum? Is he aware that the answer he has just given is totally unacceptable?

Mr. Mulley: I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not fully seized of the complexities of developing a programme for the aircraft industry. For instance—and I think that he agrees with this—we want to seek partnership arrangements with our European allies and this inevitably takes longer than devising a programme of one's own. For this purpose, I am going to France to discuss the matter with my French colleague—the first opportunity to do so since the new French Ministers took office. I cannot anticipate the Defence White Paper to be published next week but it will announce fully the Government's intentions for military aircraft.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will seek to hold discussions between Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland and the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley with a view to merging their aircraft and missile construction interests; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: In considering the future organisation of the industry I will certainly bear this suggestion in mind

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman renew the pledge given by his predecessor and again by the First Secretary of State in Belfast—that he will ensure a future place for Shorts as a working part of the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot add to what I said in the debate on the Plowden Report.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation what support he will give to the approach made by the European consortium of V.F.W. and Fokker to Short Brothers and Harland with a view to the joint design and production of the VFW614 as based on the Shorts PD65 specification.

Captain Orr: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations between V.F.W., Fokker and Short Brothers and Harland with a view to the production of a twin-jet replacement for the DC3.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will contribute the necessary finance to enable Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, to take a 40 per cent. interest in the production of the VFW614 in collaboration with the German/Dutch consortium.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the negotiations to enable Short Brothers and Harland to join in the joint design and production of the VFW614.

Mr. Mulley: In parallel with talks between representatives of the British, German and Dutch industries, my officials are discussing with the German and Dutch officials the basis on which a collaborative twin-jet feeder-liner project might go ahead. Further meetings are to be held shortly and I cannot anticipate their outcome. What rôle Short Bros. and Harland might play in such a project is not yet clear, though the possibility of their participation on some basis is by no means excluded.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that V.F.W. itself approached Short Brothers and Harland to take part in the scheme as a result of the co-operation which Shorts had been carrying on with Fokker in Germany? Will he support this co-operative effort of Shorts, which was recommended by the Plowden Report?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has only one criterion on aircraft projects—that is, whether they will provide work for Shorts. While I sympathise with his desires in that direction, I must apply wider criteria, and the first is to estab

lish whether this would be a worthwhile project in which this country should take part.

Captain Orr: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that no project into which Shorts enters will be frustrated by Government decision if the project has been freely negotiated by Shorts itself?

Mr. Mulley: There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the project. I understand that no British company is able to take part without a substantial amount of Government help and it is on the question of Government help that I must reserve the position of the Government.

Mr. Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the difficulty for Shorts in this venture is money or design?

Mr. Mulley: As I tried to make clear, the first matter to be established is whether there is a market—worthwhile economic possibilities—for such a joint venture. That question is being pursued between the Government and the officials of the companies concerned.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically deny the rumour that his predecessor told the German authorities in Bonn that Shorts was not to be considered for this collaboration?

Mr. Mulley: I was not present and it is not part of my job to confirm or deny rumours.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that more than half the workers at Shorts—over 4,000 of them—will lose their jobs unless the Government do something about this? What are the Government going to do?

Mr. Mulley: This is a wider question which raises other issues. But even if it were possible to start this project today with Shorts in it, as it desires to be, it would not affect the production problem at Shorts, which arises from the failure of the Belfast to sell other than to the Royal Air Force.

Captain Orr: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will take steps to prevent the rapid run-down in employment at Short Brothers and Harland over the next 18 months, forecast on the basis of their


present work load, by encouraging other aircraft manufacturers to place sub-contract orders in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Minister of Aviation what proposals he has to meet the expected reduction in the employment level at Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, which the Plowden Report envisages.

Mr. Mulley: Shorts are continuing to seek sub-contract work, with my full support and approval, but in a period when the aircraft industry as a whole is shrinking, the indications are that no sub-contract or other work likely to be available will prevent a substantial rundown.
I am, however, discussing the matter further with the company.

Captain Orr: Would the right hon. Gentleman now consider publishing the report of the consultants which the First Secretary's Department has had and which no doubt he has had and no doubt the management has had, and which in the ordinary course of events, because there are private shareholders in the company, will probably become public knowledge in any case? As the run-down is likely to be so rapid and so many people put so swiftly out of work, cannot something be done in the meantime to hold the bridge?

Mr. Mulley: On the second question we have encouraged Shorts to take and tender for sub-contract work on American aircraft and I am glad that they have succeeded in sub-contracts for the Phantom. The consultants were engaged jointly by the company and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and the report was made to them and not to me. I will pass the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend who will no doubt communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that harsh and inhuman treatment seems likely for about 4,000 employees of Shorts who may be put out of work in a relatively short time? Will he give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to make sure that neither that number nor any number anywhere near it become unemployed?

Mr. Mulley: I can deal only with aircraft projects, although I am doing all in my power to find work for the company which will represent the best position.

Mr. Rose: Will my right hon. Friend consult the First Secretary to see whether the site could also be used for the production of machine tools?

Mr. Mulley: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend on those lines.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be much more frank about what happened at Bonn? Does he not want to clear up a rumour which is concerning the workers at Shorts?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know where this rumour arose. I have made it quite clear, although this allegation persists in spite of what I have already told the House, that we are continuing talks to see whether this project is worth while and in that context we are considering what part Shorts will play.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to these questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give an undertaking that he will not intervene in any contracts for aircraft design and production work which Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, obtain by their own efforts.

Mr. Mulley: I can give no such undertaking. I must, for example, ensure that such contracts do not seem likely to involve unacceptable risks to public money.

Mr. Pounder: While bearing that Answer in mind, may I ask how the Minister reconciles it with that which he gave earlier this afternoon when he said that the Government were positively encouraging Shorts to tender for certain work?

Mr. Mulley: It is quite simple. I encourage Shorts to tender for work where there is not a Government financial involvement. Obviously I do not rule out Government assistance to any aircraft project but I do at least need to be consulted before commitments to this end arise.

Concord Project

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the latest estimate of the total research and development costs of the Concord project; what proportion will be for the account of the United Kingdom Government; how the total compares with the estimate made by the British and French Government early last year; and what are the reasons for the difference.

Mr. Mulley: We and our French partners are at present conducting a thorough review of the cost of the project and I am therefore not yet in a position to give a a revised estimate.
As regards the division of costs, the Anglo-French Agreement of 29th November, 1962, provides that they shall be shared as equally as possible between the United Kingdom and France.

Mr. Stainton: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has not rejected the idea of the possible extension of the Select Committee system to controlling this type of expenditure?

Mr. Mulley: I have not rejected any ideas of this kind, but I should like to have much more information about how a Select Committee could run a very complicated aircraft project being shared on an international basis.

Contracts (Prices)

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in the second report of the inquiry into the pricing of his Department's con tracts, Command Paper No. 2581; and whether he will publish a White Paper detailing the revised procedures.

Mr. Mulley: The majority of the recommendations and conclusions in Sir John Lang's second report have been accepted and implemented. A number of others are under discussion with the industry.
I do not consider that the publication of a White Paper would be appropriate at this stage.

Scotland (Direct Services to Continent)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to promote direct air services between Scotland

and the Continent and, in particular, between Aberdeen and Scandinavia.

Mr. Stonehouse: I would be glad to see more direct services between Scotland and the Continent, provided there was traffic to justify them. But their provision is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to promote these services. Is he aware that there is a grave insufficiency of direct links with some development areas and that it seems contrary to regional policy to channel freight and passenger transport services through London? Will he discuss this with B.E.A., because there is a considerable demand from the development areas for direct links to the Continent?

Mr. Stonehouse: We know that B.E.A. and the independent airlines have been considering whether direct flights could be arranged, and we are in close touch with them about it, but, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, we shall see that they are consulted again.

Aerospace Policy (Plowden Report)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent in the formation of Government aerospace policy, he proposes to take account of paragraph 165 of the Plowden Report, and of the effect of the industry on the technological progress of the nation.

Mr. Mulley: The Government will naturally pay regard to the views expressed by the Plowden Committee on this subject.

Mr. Hastings: Is this not perhaps the most important proposition in the entire Plowden Report—that no other industry has such a pervasive effect on the technological progress of the nation? Is it not at variance with the conclusion at the end of the Report that support for aviation should be cut? Will the Minister please pay attention to this when he presents his White Paper.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member will appreciate that I have no responsibility for the preparation of the Report. The hon. Gentleman should read paragraph 172 of the Report in conjunction with


paragraph 165. I accept that there is important technological fall-out from the aircraft industry, but I would not accept that this meant that we had to go on supporting the industry if it was not able to produce projects that would in other respects pay their way.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in the formation of Government aerospace policy, he pro poses to take account of the views stated in paragraph 214 of the Plowden Report, on the probably level over the next decade of sales of military and space products to governments, and on the length of time, if present trends continue, before civil air craft sales are as great as military.

Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hastings: If 80 per cent. of the sales of aviation products over the next decade are to be military or space products, is it not absolute nonsense for this country to go out of the production even of complicated military projects?

Mr. Mulley: As the House knows, we are engaged on a number of projects and we have two very important projects operating in conjunction with our French allies. The House will not expect me to anticipate the Defence Statement to be made at the end of the month.

Departmental Staff (Engineering Qualifications)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the number of personnel in his Department who possessed an engineering qualification, for each of the past 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the comparable number for the year 1970.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Ministry of Aviation was not formed until 1959. The information requested is available for the years 1962 and 1965 only, when the numbers were 1,950 and 2,050 respectively. No estimate has been made of the number of engineers the Department will have in 1970.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is great feeling in this House that his Department has not moved along with the scientific and engineering trends in society today? Would he consider rectifying this defect in his Department?

May I ask whether he will publish from time to time regular estimates of expensive projects in his Department?

Mr. Stonehouse: That is already being done and I think that the House and the country have formed a very high opinion of the excellent research work being done at our research establishments. This is not only ahead of what is being done elsewhere in Europe but it is in many respects ahead of what is being done in the United States.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many of these qualified engineers are in the direct administrative chain of command rather than in purely technical services or advisory capacities?

Mr. Stonehouse: About 9 per cent.

Development Projects

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will publish a White Paper on the progress of existing development projects in the aircraft industry, on their cost so far, on the estimated future cost of these projects, and on how much has been spent in the last eight years on projects which have been abandoned.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to give information about the progress and costs of military projects still under development. A list of cancellations and the costs involved was given on 14th April, 1965, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).

Mr. Hamling: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the pressure for new projects from the benches opposite, it might be salutary if the taxpayer knew just how much the costs had escalated and were escalating?

Mr. Mulley: I think that it would be contrary to the usual practice to give interim statements on military projects, but I have no doubt that these matters will be further discussed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence presents his White Paper.

Sir J. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be much further information about military projects in the Defence White Paper when it


is published? Will he assure the House that there is no difference between the White Paper to which he has referred, and which would be published, according to him, towards the end of this month, and the Defence White Paper which, according to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is due for publication on 22nd February?

Mr. Mulley: When I referred to the White Paper I was using the general term "the end of the month" because it is not my responsibility to publish to the House the statement on the Defence Estimates.

Air Transport Licensing Board

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to take over the powers of the Air Transport Licensing Board, in order to ensure the co-ordinated development of civil air services in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the 1960 Act was going through the House the Opposition, which is now the Government, strenuously opposed it on the grounds that we believed that this authority ought to rest with the Minister? Is he aware that if there is to be a co-ordinated development of civil air services in Scotland the only body which can do that is B.E.A., for the simple reason that the private operator only wants to run from Glasgow to London because of the profit margin and that no private operator has ever asked to run any other services in the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Stonehouse: We believe that this system works in the best interests of the community and of the airlines. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is in the system a right of appeal to the Minister.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Boeing 727 Aircraft

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will prohibit the use of airports in the United Kingdom by Boeing 727 aircraft until

the causes of the recent series of accidents befalling this aircraft have been determined.

Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the series of accidents involving a very high loss of life, each of which has taken place with this aircraft on approach, and that no cause for these accidents has been established, whether aircraft defects or handling technique? Will he take steps to prohibit the use of these aircraft in the United Kingdom until the cause of the accidents has been established and remedied, thereby preventing the occasion of an accident of this kind in airports within his jurisdiction?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am aware of these facts. As the House will be aware from the Press, the F.A.A. which is responsible for the aircraft in the United States, has called a conference to investigate the position in regard to the 727. If a British airline wishes to acquire these aircraft I am quite sure that the A.R.B. will want to carry out an intensive investigation.

Aircraft Construction (European Conference)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he has taken to initiate the conference of European aviation ministers as recommended in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, Command Paper No. 2853.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to implement section 7 of the Council of Europe Recommendation 448 which refers to the suggestion made in the Plowden Report underlining the necessity of European co-operation in aircraft construction.

Mr. Mulley: As I told the House during the debate on the Plowden Report, we intend to pursue—perhaps about the end of this year—the proposal for a European conference on co-operation in aircraft construction. I welcome the interest being shewn in this matter in the Council of Europe.

Mr. Carr: Is not the end of this year rather a late date? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of


the great urgency of getting a proper plan for the British aircraft industry in conjunction with Europe, this ought to be dealt with considerably sooner?

Mr. Mulley: I understood that in his own contribution in that debate the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be pointless to have a conference unless a good deal of detailed preparation had gone on. We have to explore the possibities of a number of individual projects before we can have a wider conference. Ministers are probably not the best people, meeting collectively, to determine the technical problems which arise in an industry of this sort.

Mr. Webster: In view of that reply, will the Minister give a progress report on the Spey-Mirage?

Mr. Mulley: I am afraid that I do not understand that question.

Mr. Carr: Will the Minister give further consideration to the question of timing? Anglo-European co-operation is not a new idea; it has been going on for some years. The Plowden Report was in his hands some three months ago. Does he not think that there is time for the detailed preparation in a much shorter period?

Mr. Mulley: The important point is to meet my colleagues and to discuss these projects with them. I am therefore going to France to-morrow. My predecessor had many talks with his European colleagues and initiated two military projects with the French. We shall explore all these possibilities, but I cannot today give a date when I think that it will be feasible for the conference to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to prosecute the leaders of the Rhodesian rebellion for treason.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The leaders of the rebellion are not at present within the jurisdiction and the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall saying that rebellion was treasonable? Is not treason a crime and is not the place for the criminal the dock rather than the negotiating table?

The Attorney-General: I recall both the matters to which my hon. Friend has

referred, but I do not think that I as Attorney-General ought to be drawn into considering hypothetical cases. The question of prosecution will fall for determination when it arises.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it is precisely questions of this sort which make the reopening of negotiations almost impossible?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID (UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES)

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Attorney-General what is the average cost of an undefended divorce case where the petitioner is legally aided; and what is the average remuneration received by a barrister in such a case.

The Attorney-General: The average cost of an undefended divorce case where the petitioner is legally aided is £110 3s. 0d. Of this sum £18 12s. 0d. is attributable to counsel's fees, £65 to solicitor's charges and £26 11s. 0d. to disbursements.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that Answer. Would he not agree that as a barrister is responsible for drafting the petition and possibly a discretion statement as well as being responsible for conducting the case in court, his overall remuneration is not unreasonable? As it is proposed to attempt to save £400,000 by removing jurisdiction to the county court, what consideration has been given to achieving a similar saving while retaining jurisdiction for divorce in the High Court?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to say that the remuneration paid to counsel is unreasonable, but we are concerned about the growing cost of undefended and defended divorce proceedings to the taxpayer by reason of the legal aid system, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares our anxiety to tackle this problem. Consideration has been given to his suggestion, but I do not think that it meets the needs of the case.

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the startling figures given in his original Answer, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider referring them to the Prices and Incomes Board?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Attorney-General what directions have been issued to magistrates concerning the number of days they are expected to sit on the bench in any one year.

The Attorney-General: No directions are given to justices as to the precise number of days they are expected to sit on the bench because the needs of the courts vary from place to place. In most areas, however, justices are expected to attend their courts at least once every two weeks, on average, throughout the year.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in some parts of the country new magistrates are asked to serve at least 40 days in the year? In view of the need to make the bench fully representative, does he not think that it is too much to expect ordinary working men and women to give at least one day's unpaid service to the bench per week? Will he look at this again?

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend would be happy to consider any case which my hon. Friend might refer to me where a particular bench has difficulty. I have given the figure of 24 times a year. It seems about right. Attendances vary from one part of the country to another. There is no indication that the present arrangements in my hon. Friend's area are creating difficulties for working-class justices, a satisfactory proportion of whom sit on the Wolverhampton bench.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Entertainment (Conditions of Work)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th March, I shall

call attention to the conditions of work in entertainment, and move a Resolution.

Central Africa

Mr. Goodhew: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th March, I shall call attention to the threat to peace in Central Africa inherent in the policies of the Prime Minister in respect of Rhodesia, and move a Resolution.

Factories Acts

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th March, I shall call attention to some necessary amendments to the Factories Acts, and move a Resolution.

MR. SPEAKER (PERSONAL STATEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a personal statement.
I learned yesterday that in a Ruling against a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) what I said in good humour—"that was an example of a point of order which a young and inexperienced hon. Member might make"—may have appeared to be both inaccurate and discourteous to the hon. Member in the context. If so, I assure both the House and the hon. Member concerned that I gladly withdraw any words in my Ruling which unwittingly gave offence.
The Chair must be firm, but never discourteous. I hope that hon. Members will never hesitate to let me know whenever I err in this way. May I again assure the House that the Chair intends, like a great predecessor, to show favour to none, but respect to all hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the payment under the National Insurance Act 1965 of earnings-related benefit, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, subject to the provision made by section 85 of the said Act of 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, of any increase attributable to that Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other government department which are so payable under either of those sections.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS RELATING TO GRADUATED CONTRIBUTIONS.)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. in page 2, line 25, at the end to add:
(e) when the employer provides to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Non-Participating Employments a sickness benefit at least equal in value to the graduated benefit provided under this Act the contributions in paragraphs (c) and (d) above shall be reduced to 4¼ per cent. and ¼ per cent. by each of the employer and employee, respectively.

The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendment No. 4 at the same time: in Clause 2, page 2, line 39, at the end to insert:
(3) Where the employers have an approved contracted-out sickness benefit under the paragraph (e) inserted by section 1(2) above, no graduated sickness benefit shall be payable in respect of the period covered.

Mr. Tiley: The Amendment stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and myself. It is with pleasure that we discuss Amendment No. 4 at the same time, Sir Samuel, as the Amendments are interrelated. We are glad to do this, because

on this important social Measure we have no wish to waste time.
We have been in a great hurry to prepare our Amendments, and I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate the difficulties in which we have been involved. If we did this when we were the Government, then we ought not to have done so, because it imposes a good deal upon our resources when, only a fortnight ago, the Bill first saw the light of day—and it is full of technicalities. Indeed, the Government have given themselves 10 out of 10 for the Bill, even though there was never a more complicated Bill before the Committee, because there is not a single Government Amendment on the Notice Paper. It may be that they have given themselves 10 out of 10, or that nobody understands the Bill sufficiently to put down Amendments.
I ought to apologise for an error in Amendment No. 4 as it appears on the Notice Paper. The words
where the employers have an approved…
appear as "where the employers are approved…"
This is clearly an error of transposition from the written word. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East wrote it.
We do not intend to waste time—indeed, we support the Bill—because we want to make adequate arrangements for the Bill to be law in August. We are entering on a new social Measure of great importance which all parties support. This does not mean that we should skip our examination of the Bill. The Government have provided sufficient time for a detailed study. As there are no Government Amendments—this is a smug Notice Paper from a smug Government—the Opposition have no opportunity for a breathing space.
The Amendment deals with contracting out. I need not explain that phrase to the Committee, for it has been in common usage since the graduated pensions scheme was passed some years ago. But I register our objection to the Government's dictatorial attitude to the whole subject of contracting out. For instance, in paragraph 16, on page 5 of the White Paper, we read:
There will be no contracting out of the new scheme of earnings-related short-term benefits.


No more and no less than that. Similarly, on 7th February the Minister said:
There will be no contracting out of the new earnings-related benefits and the extra ½ per cent. contribution will also be levied on those who have contracted out of the 4¼ per cent. contribution for the graduated retirement pension."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 47.]
This is a dictatorial Government: "There will be no contracting out", so it was stated in the White Paper and in the House.
On our side of the Committee we have no wish to burden industry with any more clerical administration in connection with National Insurance or pension schemes. We give industry enough work already in that connection. Scarcely a week passes but what some additional taxation is imposed on industry and commerce, and scarcely a week passes but what some additional administrative work is given to them, also.
As I say, we give them enough work already, but, oddly enough, the Bill, as it now is, gives companies in industry which were contracted out additional work, because for the first time they are brought in, in that the necessity is brought to them to include in their salary sheets and wages books columns for this graduated contribution. Already, therefore, extra work is being imposed.
In our view it would not have been too difficult to consider a method by which contracting out would have been possible under the new Bill. Indeed, we should not have taken up this point if already there had not been machinery provided by the previous Government, a method of dealing with graduated pensions. The machinery is there, the Registrar of Non-Participating Employments is there.
We ought to remember that the Bill is not affecting just a small number of our people who are already in sickness schemes. We on this side thought the number amounted to 14 million people already in sickness schemes and being provided for by employers in varying degrees, but we accept the figure which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us towards the end of our debate on 7th February, when he said that the number was 10½ million. We had included certain people who should not have been included.
The important thing to remember in connection with contracting out is that many of those 10½ million are already in sickness schemes which are better arrangements than those which we are now providing by the Bill. I refer to various grades of people. I have here a Report from the Ministry of Labour on sick pay schemes. It is a Report of a Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council on Occupational Sick-Pay Schemes. If we browse through the details of the various schemes which were reviewed on the instructions of the Ministry of Labour and look down the list of the great organisations we see they include nationalised industries and local authorities throughout the country and the Civil Service. There are, indeed, many schemes in being, and which have been in being for years, and which are providing much better benefits than those under the Bill.
That is all to the good. We are not complaining about that, but here are listed the National Coal Board, British Railways, London Transport Executive, British Transport Docks, Inland Waterways, the Transport Holding Company, British Transport Hotels, the electricity supply industry, the gas industry, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and the whole' of the Civil Service and local authority service, and they have between them sickness schemes which are superior to the one which is now before this Committee.
I cited in the Second Reading debate the teachers' scheme, and I shall not weary the Committee with the details of it because I have given them before, but they have a scheme which is superior to that in the Bill. Under the Civil Service scheme, for the white-collar employees, for instance, there is a qualifying period of nil; the period of payment is six months, and 12 months in relation to incapacity, and a further six months on half pay, subject to a maximum of 12 months' sick leave in any four years, and the benefits are full pay less National Insurance benefit, and half pay at the end of six months without any deduction of National Insurance benefit, and there are no waiting days for the period of payment.
3.45 p.m.
A serious problem arises whether sufficient thought has been given as to what the position is now to be with the whole of these sickness and accident schemes.


It is not, of course, only the nationalised industries and the Civil Service and the local authorities which are concerned, but there are many great companies in private industry—indeed, great and small companies—in which these private sickness schemes have been in force for some time.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will deny this, if it is not true, but we wonder if this is not a dictatorial attitude, because we cannot find any trace of consultation having taken place with any of the organisations I have mentioned. Indeed, the worst of Socialism is that the Government say, "Do it because we say so". No explanations have been given. We want to know whether there has been any consultation about contracting out. There may have been consultation about the scheme; we doubt whether there has been sufficient consultation about the whole scheme; but has there been consultation about contracting out?
We know, for instance, that the Confederation of British Industry is concerned about the effect the Bill will have on employers' sickness schemes. Many of these in the private sector of industry and commerce are non-contributory. The Confederation is concerned for two reasons. The first is that the value of the schemes in the private and public sectors is greatly reduced—or will be when the Bill becomes law; the value of the schemes to the workers is greatly reduced. They are, indeed, worried; those 10½ million people are worried about the effects on that concession, which we hope to see spreading throughout the country, and which is part of their working agreements in employment, whether in the public or the private sector. The Confederation is also concerned at the serious over-benefiting which may occur in those private schemes in which deductions are not made for insurance benefit. We pointed the other day by way of illustration to the extra industrial injury benefit of £2 15s. as another example of the over-benefiting in certain cases.
It should be made clear, and I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to do this, as I hope she will, that by the application of the Bill when it becomes law it will be necessary for many of these private schemes to be reviewed. We see the need, and I am sure the right hon. Lady sees the need, that we should, from both sides of the Committee, make it

clear, because we think that that would have a good effect on industrial relations, because none of us wants to see conflict or trouble arising because of the passage of a Bill providing enormous benefits throughout the country, and which, for some years, we have wanted to see implemented.
There is also concern in the Civil Service. I have permission from Mr. Richard Hayward, who is Secretary-General to the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, to give an example. I would not have done so without his permission. There is concern in the Civil Service for the future protection of their members. It is as if a principle is being violated for the first time. It must be obvious to all that members of the Civil Service will not readily have compulsory deductions made from their salaries or wages where there is no personal benefit being obtained under the terms of the Bill.
There are 750,000 civil servants which is not a small number, and all of them have a scheme and benefits in being. It is not fair to say that they get them for nothing, because the benefits are part and parcel of their employments conditions and their contract of service.
Hitherto, the contract of service has included all those benefits, but now that vast army of people are being compelled to contribute from their salaries and wages for something which they already have as part and parcel of their service contract.
No one will get very excited about a deduction of 1s. a week, with the knowledge that the money will provide a multitude of people throughout the country with benefits which in a civilised land everyone would wish to see brought about. But there are 750,000 people, and Mr. Hayward estimated that they would contribute £1½ million each year, to which would be added £1½ million in respect of employers' contributions. So it is not a small thing with which we are dealing.
In total, it seeems a great amount, but, as I say, no one will object to a 1s. a week. However, we should like the Minister to make some comment about the principle. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is an expert on the subject, and he will know that this is the first time that such a deduction


has been proposed for something which a man has in his contract of service as a matter of right and, oddly enough, when he is compelled to pay for the privilege of having it he is getting something less than he has as a matter of right.
It is a serious intervention by the Government, and I know that the Staff Side of the Civil Service would like confirmation that it is not a new method of dealing with our social services. The whole country knows that the right hon. Member for Sowerby has been engaged for some time in a review, and I wonder what the effect of that review will be.
I mentioned the possibility in Second Reading. Perhaps we can be told if the Minister has asked or invited the Accident Offices' Association to pass their comments to her about the sickness and accident benefits in the Bill. The business of insurance is a mighty part of our economic life and, as I said the other day, it is something which is the envy of all trading countries in the world. If it had been impossible for the private sector to amend its schemes, or if it gave it too much work to consider it, none the less it is nice to be asked, and I should like to feel that it had been consulted.
The great difference between the two sides of the Committee is that we on our side believe that we should assist private enterprise and private endeavour as much as possible, whereas the Government never even consider it and on many occasions appear to do real harm. To the Government, the State is all supreme, but State schemes do not bring in export earnings in the same way that the great insurance business of our country does.
We are using the Amendments on the Notice Paper to probe the Government's mind. We are filled with apprehension about some of the disregard which the right hon. Lady paid to the contracting-out arrangement in her speech on the Second Reading and we are entitled to know what its future is to be. After all, we may be facing a General Election at any time, and we would like to be told what it is in the right hon. Lady's own words. Tell us now what is to be the future in private pensions about the contracting-out arrangement, because there are millions of members of private schemes who do not wish for Government intervention.
When we examined the right hon. Lady's words, we noted with some alarm that she said:
There will be no major alterations at this stage in the contracting-out arrangements.
Does she mean in respect of the present Bill, or is a great scheme being hatched to destroy contracting out and thereby destroy the whole system of private arrangements for pensions?
The right hon. Lady went on:
The level of equivalent pension benefits will not be changed by the Bill. Existing contracting-out certificates will, therefore, remain valid.
That is very kind condescension—
In other words, this is an interim scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 47–8.]
It is full of foreboding for the future of the private sector, and it is right—

The Chairman: Order. I find it very difficult to relate this to the Amendments.

Mr. Tiley: I felt that you would think that, Sir Samuel, and I am sorry that I have trespassed on your courtesy. Perhaps I shall be able to return to my argument when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". For the present, I will leave it.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring) rose—

Mr. Tiley: Do not ask me a question now which Sir Samuel will not permit.

Mr. Urwin: I rise merely on a point of clarification. Would the hon. Gentleman assist the Committee by indicating the columns of last Monday's Second Reading debate which he refers to when he quotes the words of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Tiley: I quoted the column number in my earlier reference to the right hon. Lady's speech, and my later references were a continuation of it. The references were to columns 47 and 48 of 7th February, 1966.
As I have said, we have put down these Amendments as probing Amendments, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on them. We hope that we shall have a healthy debate on the subject of contracting out. I have posed many questions, because I think that people are entitled to know why they


cannot contract out under the Bill when the procedure is there already. They are entitled to know what is to be the future of contracting out.

4.0 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I should have thought that the Minister would have had no difficulty in accepting the Amendments. I know that Socialists as a body are inclined to think that when they produce a blanket proposal and anyone wants to contract out of it, there is a catch in it and they are getting away with something. But I am quite sure that that could not be the case with the Amendments that we are discussing.
We are dealing with two Amendments to a Bill which, we must remember, is costing £76 million, with the background of other Acts which we have brought in in the last 12 months which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds. Thus, any savings that we can make, particularly when we fail to pay our debts and incur enormous new ones, are not only important in themselves, but show a willingness by the country to cut its coat according to its cloth.
I confess that I cannot work out—I have not the resources to do so—to what extent the amendment will be an economy to employers, but I assume that it will be appreciable. But apart from that, economy in administration, form-filling and the like, is a great consideration these days, particularly with the new proposals which we were discussing yesterday, so anything that can be done to minimise either money or work is well worth considering.
During the Second Reading of the Bill a good deal was said from both sides of the House about absenteeism, and the effect which increased benefits would have on it. I do not want to exaggerate. The fact is that the vast majority of people at work, in whatever job, do a good day's work. They are loath to go sick, and remain at work even when they should not.
There is, however, a certain amount of absenteeism and I believe that if there is a central Government scheme we are more likely to get that sort of thing than if we have a scheme which is organised and run by employers, possibly with the

co-operation of the trade unions. A centralised scheme is impersonal, whereas when a scheme is run by employers, or by industry, or by a company, the people running it are in touch with the men, or should be, and they have an incentive to weed out those who take advantage of such a scheme, as it is to the disadvantage of everyone if some malingerers take advantage of it. I believe, therefore, that from that aspect private schemes are to be greatly encouraged.
Amendment No. 1 refers to
a sickness benefit at least equal in value
to the Government scheme. From my knowledge of schemes which provide all kinds of fringe benefits, I know that when words such as those are used in legislation, private schemes invariably begin to go ahead of the public one, and for this reason, too, I think that private schemes are to be encouraged. It sometimes seems that Socialists are incensed when that happens, but they will, I trust, stifle their feelings.
I believe that if the Amendments are accepted both money and work will be saved. There may be better benefits, perhaps not to everybody, but do not let us take the view that unless everybody gets more, nobody should. If some companies are able and willing to produce better schemes, so much the better. Others will have to produce schemes at least equally as good as that proposed in the Bill. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to these Amendments.

Mr. Urwin: As there are innumerable schemes in industry. I have some sympathy with the Amendment. During the Second Reading debate last week I asked my hon. Friend to give us a lead and some guidance on what was to be the future of such schemes in the event of this Bill becoming law.
I think that people running schemes in industry are somewhat concerned about the future of those schemes. I say that because I know that in one or two schemes—and certainly in the sickness pay scheme with which I am familiar—there is an escape clause which provides the opportunity for further discussions in the event of legislation of this kind being introduced. I think that the Committee will be greatly assisted if my right


hon. Friend can give us a lead on what is to happen to such industrial schemes.

Mr. Paul Dean: I, too, wish to ask a number of questions on this important point of contracting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) said, there is practically nothing about this in the White Paper, and we heard very little by way of explanation during the Second Reading debate. This makes me wonder whether the problem was fully considered before the Bill was brought in. In answer to questions put from this side of the House during the Second Reading debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance admitted that many of the private schemes would require adjustment. He said:
In many cases National Insurance benefits are taken into account automatically; that is, they are deducted from the sick pay; in such circumstances the new supplements may cause the scheme's benefits to be adjusted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 140.]
This means that the vast majority of schemes—indeed, perhaps all—covering about half the working population, will have to be examined to see what adjustments will have to be made.
People running these schemes will have to make an adjustment where benefit is paid less National Insurance benefit. Every scheme will have to be adjusted to take that into account, but the additional question which arises is whether, in view of this new State scheme, they will feel that more substantial adjustments are required in their schemes. Will they feel that it is no longer possible for them to run these additional schemes now that the State scheme is expanding in this way?
As both employers and employees will have to pay additional contributions, they may feel that they cannot afford to provide the benefits which they are providing at the moment, and many of these benefits, particularly in the public service, in the nationalised industries, and in some private industries, are substantially better than those provided by the State scheme.
Perhaps I might mention just two examples to which I referred on Second Reading. The schemes for teachers and nurses provide good benefits, and in many cases, particularly after a certain period

of employment, provide better benefits than those provided by the State scheme, and with no contribution by the employees concerned.
It is essential to have more information about what is likely to be the effect of the Bill on such schemes, because if, at the end of the day, we find that the two schemes to which I have referred, for nurses and teachers, are not able to provide the sickness benefits which they are providing at the moment, it will be a strange comment on the recruiting drive which is now on for both nurses and teachers. These are just two examples. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to tell us more about the study which she has done on the effect of the schemes proposed in the Bill and also why it is not possible to formulate a practical contracting-out arrangement. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be too complicated and I can see that this is so, but what we on this side are not satisfied about is that sufficient thought and attention has been given by the Government to try to find the answer.
I should like to turn to the action which private schemes will now have to take. It is not at all clear whether this scheme will be the pattern for the future or not. We were told during Second Reading that this was an interim Bill, but I received the clear impression from many of the things said both by the right hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary that this was the future pattern for the short-term benefits, that it is not likely to be changed and that it is the first part we have yet seen of the long-term review which the Chancellor of the Duchy is now undertaking.
The right hon. Lady said during Second Reading:
This Bill is the first of the new developments stemming from the review.
She also said:
The Bill…presents the first stage in the Government's plans to reorganise social security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 37, 53.]
This suggests an air of finality, that the future pattern is now established for short-term benefits. If this is so, it is very important that those who run occupational schemes should be quite clear that this is the case.
At the moment, in many cases, they do not know whether they should attach


more importance to the word " interim " used by the right hon. Lady and, therefore, postpone any long-term look at their own schemes until the Government bring forward their major review, or to the clear indication that this is the first part of the long-term review and that it will form a pattern for future short-term benefits.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): The hon. Gentleman quoted a part of my speech from col. 37 of that Report, but he did not quote the full sentence. I went on to say:
But I want to stress that it is an interim Measure which will be re-examined"—
that is clear enough—
in the light of the results of the completed review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 37.]
I do not think that anyone could be clearer than that.

Mr. Dean: I am glad to have that from the right hon. Lady, because this helps to clear up the point. I agree that I mentioned that she said that this was an interim scheme, but the quotations I have given, including that from col. 53, where she said:
The Bill…presents the first stage of the Government's plans to reorganise social security
suggests, at any rate to me, that this is to be the future pattern upon which these short-term benefits will be based.
I am simply asking for elucidation, because it is important that those running sickness schemes, those who are considering doing so and those setting up new ones, should have as clear an indication as possible of what is in the Government's mind. Is it likely that this pattern will be the pattern for the future for short-term benefits or, when we have the long-term review from the right hon. Gentleman, will something be put in its place? If this could be elucidated, it would be of great assistance to us and to those concerned with these matters.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The Minister will, I am sure, have derived the impression that these Amendments and the speeches in support of them reflect no basic opposition to the objectives of the Clause. They reflect rather

a profound anxiety about the future of the occupational schemes which have existed for many years in variegated forms and which are generally drawn up to suit the requirements of a particular profession, industry or trade. There is deep anxiety about this and I do not believe that the right hon. Lady will think that unreasonable. Indeed, her hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) confessed that he shared some of this anxiety.
It is right and proper that a humane society, finding that private schemes cannot make the sort of universal provision, should itself do so. That is why we support the main principle of the Clause. At the same time, there is, in some of our minds on this side of the Committee, another anxiety—that we might be beginning to incline too much on the side of universal provision by the State. This is a real anxiety. I would remind the right hon. Lady that, whereas we want the State to do things which cannot be done by people themselves, we do not want it to do those things which people can conceivably do better for themselves.
I would remind her, also, that some of the most dynamic countries in the world and some of the most dynamic economies, which give their peoples very high standards of living—I am thinking in particular of some Western European countries—tend in the direction of occupational schemes of a very high order. Under such schemes, provision is made more by employers in co-operation with the State than by the State itself. This is a salutary tendency in those countries.
We want from the right hon. Lady not a confession that she is wrong—we do not believe that—but an indication that she, also, is deeply concerned about the future of these occupational schemes and that she will do her utmost to ensure that the provision which is now being made with the support of all parties in the House will not fatally damage those schemes and that she and her colleagues will do their utmost to achieve a state of affairs under which State provision will be adequate, but the provision by way of occupational schemes will not be fatally hurt.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand—although she has no experience of the married state—that,


in the marriage service, there is a form of words which goes something like, "You take each other in sickness and in health, 'till death do you part." The right hon. Lady will understand that she has been able to opt out of that. There seems to be a grave danger that what applies to marriage will not apply to schemes of this kind. We seem to be in danger of not applying it to schemes of health and sickness for employees in industry.
I am certain that in this scheme, as in others, there should be an opportunity not only for existing independent private schemes to continue, but for direct encouragement to be given to the extension of private schemes. This encouragement is missing from the Clause. If we want to encourage private schemes we must give an incentive. I should like to encourage not only private schemes offered by employers, but also private schemes of health and sickness insurance offered by trade unions.
Over the years the trade unions have had to appeal for membership on the basis, "If you join the trade union you will secure from it all support to get an increase in wages." This has resulted in wages increases, sometimes, let us be honest about it, not justified by productivity. This is a problem just as much for the present Government as it was for the Conservative Government. If trade unions could appeal for membership on the basis of benefits which they provide for their members other than wage increases, it would enable them to bid for members on a basis which was less destructive to the prices and incomes policy.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is getting very far from the Amendment which we are discussing. He must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: The Amendment can apply to what I am saying in so far as it seeks to give incentives to employers. It is also possible that an incentive could be given to trade unions. But if, Sir Samuel, you say that I am out of order, I shall move from this subject.
This principle has always appealed to the Conservative Party. In connection with the Health Service, we believe in the private sector. We should make

our position clear that in sickness payments we believe that there should be encouragement to the private sector. My hon. Friend mentioned teachers and nurses. In addition, there are a great number of private firms which have always made sickness payments which go beyond what is being offered in the Bill. They should be encouraged to do so and others should be encouraged to introduce schemes equal to the best which are available.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will make it clear that the Labour Party, too, believe that nothing the Government will do will kill the opportunity which they provide and the encouragement which they give to private firms to look after their own workpeople. When I speak of employees I do not mean only the artisans, because almost everyone who works in industry, from the director downwards, is an employee. There is a great danger that people may believe that the State inevitably looks after them.
If we are to encourage people to believe that the firm in which they are working is a joint enterprise of directors, management and workpeople, as well as those who put their money in the firm, we must give all those who work in that enterprise an understanding that what they do matters to the company. There is no better way of doing that than by bringing the company into the task of looking after their employee's welfare.
I hope that the Bill does not represent the beginning of a move by the Government to say that private schemes must be disregarded or discouraged.

Miss Herbison: This has been a very wide-ranging debate. I was a little surprised when I saw these two Amendments headed by the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) because I assumed from his Second Reading speech that he understood the difficulties of doing other than we have decided to do in the Bill. Having listened to hon. Member after hon. Member speak in the debate today, it has become clear to me why the right hon. Gentleman's name heads the Amendments, It seems to me that hon. Members have no worry about the provisions of the Bill and about contracting in and contracting out for sickness benefits—except, perhaps, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot)


who made a specific point about contracting out. He is almost the only hon. Member to do so.
So far, the whole debate has highlighted the doctrinaire ideas of the Opposition not about benefits for sick people, but about what is to be the future of pensions provision in this country. In the last few weeks we have had "noises off" about this. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Labour Government want to kill occupational pension schemes. That suggestion exists only in his imagination. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are delighted that so many people have adequate provision for their old age through occupational pension schemes, and in anything the Government do in future there will always be a place for these good occupational pension schemes.
I do not know who briefed the hon. Member for Bradford West (Mr. Tiley) or other hon. Members. The hon. Member was in the private insurance world for a long time. I do not know who briefed him, or whether he was expressing his own fears when he said that private insurance would not have in future the whole provision for occupational pension schemes which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has told the country it will have. But all that will be the subject for another debate.
I want to make it quite clear that we do not regard private insurance schemes and occupational schemes as rivals to anything which we shall do in the future. They will be partners in the job of ensuring for everyone in the country an adequate income on retirement. Unlike hon. Members opposite, we are not doctrinaire. They say that this is a job which the Government can do for no group of people and that only private insurance can do it.

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose—

Miss Herbison: I will not give way at the moment. I let all hon. Members speak who wished to do so, except for one interruption to correct a statement, and I intend, for the present, to carry on with my speech. We are busy with our review, and I do not think that there are any fears in the private insurance world such as have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. The real fear of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the State might do

something which would interfere with profits for some other people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is evident from the debate today and from what has been said previously. We do not take that view.
I will deal with some of the other matters that have been raised. The hon. Member for Bradford, West spoke about the timing. We are trying to get the Bill on the Statute Book as speedily as possible and we are grateful to the Opposition for the help they are giving us in this endeavour. If we want these extra benefits to be payable in the autumn it is of the utmost importance that we get the Bill through at the earliest possible moment.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West was worried about there not being any Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends. The answer is that my hon. Friends do not have an axe to grind on this issue, whereas it is evident that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a number of axes to grind, although they are axes which have nothing whatever to do with the provisions of the Bill. It seems, therefore, that my hon. Friends are, in the main, content with what I would call this breakthrough in the better provision of benefits for sickness, unemployment and widowhood.
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask about the consultations that had taken place. I have had consultations with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry and the T.U.C. They were made aware of the provisions of the Measure and I assure the hon. Gentleman that these consultations were very different from what he suggested. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we were taking a dictatorial attitude—"There will be no contracting out of this", he said we were saying. What I said on Second reading, and what the White Paper pointed out, was concerned with the facts. I will explain these when I come to deal with the Amendment, but I thought that, at the outset, I would answer this debate, which has had very little to do with the Amendment. I will show why, based on the facts, we have drafted the Bill in its present form.
A number of hon. Gentleman opposite said that we should not burden employers with additional clerical and administrative


work. I hope that when I have dealt with the Amendment they will realise that the Bill will do nothing of the kind, whereas if the Amendment were accepted the work of employers in this matter would be greater and more complicated.
I was interested in the list given by the hon. Member for Bradford, West of the industries which, he said, were already making better provision than the Bill in times of sickness. The hon. Gentleman referred to the nationalised industries and the public services.

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose—

Miss Herbison: I wish that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) would listen to what I am saying. I am replying to statements made by his hon. Friend who, I take it, was careful to check his facts before speaking.
It is true that some private employers do make this sort of provision, but not for anything like the numbers in publicly-owned industries and others, such as State and local authority employees. This is, perhap, another reason for the Bill—so many people in private industry either have no private sick pay benefit schemes', or have schemes that are inadequate.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West referred to over-compensating and the question of the £2 15s. on top of the earnings-related benefit. That £2 15s. can only be received by a man or woman who has become injured at work. This is, therefore, compensation for injury—something which has existed in this country for more than 100 years and which exists in almost every industrialised country in the world. I hope that we will not hear any more about this business of over-compensating.
It is suggested that this will be the first time that the conditions of public servants—employees in the Civil Service, local authorities, and so on—are being worsened. In 1948—when provisions were introduced to cover many of these people who had not been covered by previous national insurance legislation—a change was made affecting teachers, civil servants' and others. Therefore, this is not the first time that a change affecting these people is being made. If the Opposition are so concerned about the position of these people why, during their 13 years

of power, did they not do something to rectify what happened in 1948?
The hon. Member for Bradford, West stated that certain bodies—and he said he had been in touch with Mr. Hayward of the Staff Side of the Civil Service—had grave forebodings about the Bill. I have not learned of these grave forebodings. It is, of course, natural that people should not want to lose anything which they now have. I understand that these bodies are leaving the matter in abeyance pending a full scheme being worked out in the whole social security review so that they will be able to see the position of sickness and unemployment benefits and earnings-related pensions in the future.
Just as we have had consultations with the bodies I mentioned, I assure the Committee that we will give plenty of time for further consultations, not only for ourselves in the Ministry—with the C.B.I, and the T.U.C.—but, I hope, also between the Ministers concerned as employers of these public servants and the Staff Side. Taking them into our confidence about what we hope to do, with every willingness to have close consultations, is the way we wish to proceed, because those concerned have a right to know what will happen to them in the future.
The hon. Member for Barry said that there was deep anxiety over this matter, but he did not give a sign of the quarters from where that anxiety came. I do not know whether he could give such a sign.
The intention of the Amendment is to allow contracting out of earnings-related sickness benefit. I shall deal later with matters intrinsic to the provisions of the Bill, but I would now say that if one were to allow the suggested contracting out a very elaborate procedure would be needed. Not all of those at present contracted out from the graduated pension scheme have a sick pay scheme, and some of those who are contracted into the present graduated pension scheme do have private sick pay schemes. That means that if we were to accept the Amendment there would be four categories.
What would those four categories be? We would have the man who was contracted out for pension and sickness benefits—for both. We would have the man who was contracted in for both.


We would have the man who was contracted out for pensions, but not for sickness benefit. We would have the man who was contracted out for sickness benefit, but not for pension. Apart from all the other complications, at least four different rates of contribution would be required, and it does not take much imagination to realise the problems that that would create for the employer, leaving aside the administrative problems for the Ministry.
The Amendment refers to
…a sickness benefit at least equal in value to the graduated benefit provided under this Act…
Very frequently, it would not be easy to demonstrate what would be a benefit at least equal to that which will be provided under this Measure. For instance, difficulties could arise with the cover afforded by an occupational sick pay scheme, with the amount, duration, and with waiting-day rules of the benefit provided. Any system of contracting out would greatly complicate administration.
There would be no way of deciding from the contributions a man had paid whether a claim was contracted out from sickness benefit.

Sir Keith Joseph: Sir Keith Joseph (Leeds, North-East) indicated dissent.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, realised from the very beginning the nonsense of this Amendment, but it is important that I should deal with it, so that he and his hon. Friends cannot, in future, say that this was something that could be easily done. That is why I am taking the valuable time of the Committee to deal with the subject properly.
It would be necessary to question all claimants for sickness benefit, and, for different reasons, the answer that our officials got might be wrong. Here, we come to the extra clerical burden on the employer, because a claimant's statements could be verified only by reference to the employer. That would put extra work on the employer and, at the present time, the nation wants as far as possible to keep down any extra work put on the shoulders of employers. There would also be the chance of overpayment, and complicated follow-up action would be almost certain to increase.
Again, the Amendment does not make it clear whether the criterion for withholding the supplement on grounds of contracting out is to relate to the employment current at the time of the claim, or to that in which the employee was employed during the tax year on which title to the supplement is to depend. If the former is intended, we would have to safeguard against the possibility of an employer seeking to evade his contracted-out obligations.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), in lauding the private pension scheme, said that the employer was able to weed out the malingerer, but a Government—and, I would hope, everyone—would want to protect the people as well, the people who are willing to work. Just as the hon. and gallant Member has suggested that the employer should use his private scheme to weed out malingerers there are provisions in this scheme for the safeguarding of the workers.
An employer might seek to evade his contracted-out obligations by discharging an employee soon after he fell seriously ill. There would be nothing to prevent that, or to prevent the employer discharging a man when it appeared to him that the man was likely to go off ill. There would be nothing at all to prevent the employer getting rid of the man, just as the hon. and gallant Member accepted that there would be nothing to prevent his getting rid of a malingerer. There would be no safeguard at all for the people who were contracted out—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There would be the one safeguard that the employer who took such action would hardly be likely to have a scheme himself—if he were that type of employer.

Miss Herbison: Who knows? That is just supposition. It is hypothetical, just as the malingerer might be hypothetical. What we have to ensure is that there is protection for the worker, and I have given that as one example of what might happen to a worker if contracting out were permitted on that basis.
If the intention of the Amendment is to relate the position to the employment in the relevant tax year, complications again would rise where there had been


two employments—that could easily happen—one employment being contracted out for sickness benefit purposes and the other not so contracted out. Or, indeed, there might be a time during that year when the worker had no employment at all. I think that all reasonable hon. Members will accept that these instances show that contracting out arrangements will be very far from simple.
I suggest that in this instance contracting out is an unnecessary complication. Employers with sick pay schemes normally already provide for sick pay to be adjusted to take into account National Insurance benefits, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Second Reading debate. As far as I can see, the present sick pay benefit schemes vis-à-vis the provisions made under the Bill will be matters for the usual negotiations between employer and employee.
The National Insurance Scheme has, from the very beginning, been based on the pooling of risks. Provision for contracting out of sickness contributions and benefit would be most attractive to those occupations in which the incidence of sickness is light. To allow this would cut at the very root of the principle behind the scheme, not only behind this scheme, but behind National Insurance almost from its inception.
For all these reasons I hope that if the Opposition intend to push this matter to a Division the Amendment will be rejected.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady chose to answer a good-humoured and probing debate in rather acid terms. I think that, on reflection, and, in particular, on contemplating the character of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), she may regret some of the things she allowed herself to say. To suggest that my hon. Friend, or I, any of my hon. Friends, or any hon. Members of this Committee, in raising the perfectly legitimate subject of contracting out are interested only in profit, or—in her inelegant phrase—are grinding axes, is beneath her, and beneath anyone speaking from the Dispatch Box.
If the right hon. Lady chooses to indulge in this sort of argument it should at least be relevant, for contracted-out

sickness schemes—if there were such a phenomenon—or private sickness schemes are very rarely in the hands of insurance companies. They are organised and managed by individual employers, by the Civil Service for the public service, by the nationalised industries for their employees and by private industry for its employees. There may be some schemes run by insurance companies and they may not be mutual ones. They may be for profit, but, even if there is an element of profit here, it is utterly wrong for the right hon. Lady to cast the sort of aspersion she did.
Since the right hon. Lady has said that, I can tell her that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, who always declares his interest, has been involved in his personal activity of insurance, but that has enabled him, as an hon. Member of this House, to give hundreds of hours to the provisions of the Members' Pension Fund and to advise hon. Members on it. My hon. Friend said that the Opposition have no intention of pressing this Amendment to a Division. I hope that when we finish this debate the right hon. Lady will graciously see fit to withdraw her personal remarks.
If I may, I shall now try to restore the good humour of the debate. I suppose I am one of the "noises off" to whom the right hon. Lady referred. That was a perfectly fair reference. I have spoken in favour of occupational pension schemes being, in her phrase, partners in providing for the older population. We wanted to probe the possibility of private sickness schemes being partners with the State in providing for at least a share of the protection against sickness for the people of this country, but we are certainly not ideologues in this matter.
We recognise the great complexity of trying to operate contracting out for sickness where the sums of money involved are relatively small and the amount of clerical and managerial work relatively heavy. That is why the whole debate was for the purpose of ventilating the possibility, without this party committing itself to saying that this was the right answer. As the right hon. Lady knows, we are in support of the objectives of the Bill. We have a number of criticisms to make, but, in general, we are supporters of the Bill and want to see it on the Statute Book. She must not


object if we explore some of the alternative ways of reaching some of her—some of our, shared—objectives.
We have had a number of what I thought constructive and interesting speeches, from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot), my hon. Friends the Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), Barry (Mr. Gower) and Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). In an effective intervention the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) took the same line, that this was a possibility worth exploration.
I pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry and repeated by other hon. Members. There are safeguards for the citizen which can be effectively provided only by the State. That is agreed, but there are other safeguards for the citizen which he or his employer or some society to which he belongs can effectively provide as an alternative.
The scope for the State effectively to cover all the things we want it to cover will be limited the more we call on the State to do things which the citizen or his employer can do for him. That is the simple point at issue. So far as concerns the objectives of the Bill, unemployment benefit plainly falls into the first category of things to be provided for by the State. Sickness benefit is arguable. Long-term sickness definitely falls within the purview of the State unless someone has resources properly to insure himself or herself, but short-term sickness is already to a sizeable extent covered to some degree by private arrangements.
It is no mean alternative that we propose to the Goverment in our Amendment. We are not merely proposing that private employers or public employers should accept all the clerical or managerial burden of operating a contracted-out sickness scheme for nothing. We are suggesting that there should be a remission to them of ¼ per cent. on each side. That sounds very little, but it is 50 per cent. of the surcharge which the right hon. Lady is legitimately making by the Bill. We are offering them a remission of 50 per cent. of the cost if they provide adequately by their own arrangements. This is not a monstrous proposal. It is worth examining soberly. I am glad that after

the fireworks the right hon. Lady did examine it soberly. She made the sort of strong case we expected, but we wanted to probe it.
This ¼ per cent. on each side is 50 per cent. of the surcharge and it adds up to the formidable sum of £36 million a year. What we were proposing tentatively was that for the benefit of £36 million it would be worth employers, partly—half the benefit would go into the pockets of employees—taking on a certain clerical load. That does not seem to demand an apology from us for putting it forward.
I come to the substance of the argument. My hon. Friend gave the figures. There is some legitimate disagreement about the exact figures, but we have the fact that probably 60 per cent. of the working population is covered by some sort of sickness scheme. Some schemes are substantial and some almost insignificant. Some are formal and some informal. But this is a considerable slice of the working population which to a certain extent is covered. We have evidence that the negotiations which lead to private industrial sickness benefits can do much good for relations between employers and employees. I have with me an article by Mr. Edward James, Assistant Lecturer in Social Administration, University of Birmingham, dealing with private industrial sick benefits and published in the New Society on 23rd May, 1963.
We have to ask ourselves and the Government whether it would not be prudent to build on the 60 per cent. already covered and provide coverage, at least for part of the time if not for the full six months, by the employer. Of course, we recognise that it would involve a fairly elaborate set-up. We recognise that industry might well say, having sniffed at the £36 million or half-share of it, that it is not worth it, that it is too complex and elaborate. We anticipate that that might well be the answer. That is why we are not pressing this proposal. The right hon. Lady spelt out helpfully the four different categories in which people might find themselves, the difficulties of comparing the benefits completely with the benefits under the Bill, the problems of verification, particularly" if the employee had changed his job, and so on. We accept those difficulties.
5.0 p.m.
On the other hand, the right hon. Lady did not deal with some of the points of substance made from this side of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West and others of my hon. Friends pointed out the position of those already covered by private sickness schemes. It is common ground between both sides of the Committee that private sickness schemes fall into two categories. In the first case, the employer makes up the national sickness benefit to a set proportion of earnings or wages. Where that happens, as national sickness benefit increases it is the employer that will make the saving. There will probably be no benefit to the individual employee. The employer will have less to make up and will make a saving. He will benefit from the pioneering attitude he has taken to social costs. Good luck to him.
It is a bit galling to teachers, nurses and civil servants to have added to their own taxes, because that is what it comes to, ¼ per cent. out of their own pay packets and ¼ per cent. from their employers, to get as regards sickness not a penny piece benefit, but, in fact, to be used to subsidise the rest of the population. The right hon. Lady replied to this by pointing out with satisfaction that public enterprise has a lead in private sickness benefits over private enterprise. So be it; we do not deny it, but it does not answer the point.

Miss Herbison: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman was listening. I dealt with this point by saying that this would be a matter for negotiation between employer and employee. I made it perfectly clear.

Sir K. Joseph: I wonder what exactly that could mean. Does the right hon. Lady suggest that the employer will make a concession to his employees, or will the employer merely save the amount that he already provides by way of sickness benefit and which will now be replaced by the State benefit? The right hon. Lady is not responsible for employers, and nobody expects her to be. She cannot ride out of this by saying that it is for employers and employees to negotiate. The whole world is open for employers and employees to negotiate. That was

not a proper answer, particularly as so many of those who are most affected are public servants. The right hon. Lady has not given us a proper answer on that point.
The second category of private pension schemes is where the employer is in the habit of adding to the national sickness benefit. In this case, it is again common ground that the employer will almost certainly review his scheme and may well take a second look at it and reduce the benefit he has been giving. Again, there will probably be no benefit of substance to those whom the right hon. Lady is seeking to help. For them, there will be no extra benefit. They will have to pay, not just the ¼ per cent. to protect them from unemployment, widowhood and sickness, but the ½ per cent. to protect them against unemployment, widowhood and sickness. They get no extra benefit, but they pay for the sickness benefit they are not getting. I do not think that the right hon. Lady can be very proud of her answer on this matter.
I thought that at the end of her speech the right hon. Lady touched on some most interesting possibilities. She pointed out, legitimately, that there is a different risk rating when it comes to sickness for each industry. There is a greater propensity to be sick in some industries than in others. For private insurance, as she pictured it, to cream off the lowest risks would leave an unfair burden on the State. If her assumptions were true, this would be a very potent argument. The right hon. Lady forgets what she forgot when she was so angry with my hon. Friends and myself. This is not generally an insurable field. It is a field of management. Management running its own scheme carries its own risks. Risk rating is built into its own scheme.
I do not see that the right hon. Lady's argument is relevant. Even if it were relevant, the right hon. Lady fails to recognise that what we are suggesting should be put into private hands—suggesting only tentatively, probingly—is only the graduated element and not the flat-rate sickness pay. It is the flat-rate basic sickness pay which fairly has to be carried by the main population, unless one goes in for the most elaborate risk


rating scheme. Otherwise, it would be unfair on the scheme. If the flat-rate sickness scheme is left in public hands, as certainly is common ground between us all, with some private provision for sickness for some part of the time put into private hands, it does not seem to me that the residuary legatee—that is, the general contributor—is thereby damaged.
I ask the right hon. Lady to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West stated at the very beginning that we should not press the Amendment to a Division, but that we wanted to explore the possibilities. We recognise the force of the right hon. Lady's argument. This would be a very complex operation and probably, despite the saving of £35 million, would not be justified. We acept that. We hope that on her side the right hon. Lady will withdraw the imputations that she made, which were thoroughly wrong in character, against the people to whom she was referring. They were also baseless in fact, because the sort of private insurance we are discussing for graduated sickness would, in the vast majority of cases, not be a field of profit at all, but would be a management function of individual employers.

Miss Herbison: I should like to take up a few points which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He spoke about some of my comments and about my anger. He seems to have had very great difficulty in riding two horses—on the one hand, trying to make out a case for private provision for sickness benefit and, on the other, accepting that the case made against the Amendment from this side of the Committee is a sound one. His having to try to ride two horses makes things very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman.
If the speeches made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and everyone else who has spoken in this, our first, debate in Committee had been about the Amendment and contracting out of sickness benefit, I would have dealt with the debate in the way I had intended to deal with it. I should have given all the reasons why it was impossible to contract out of sickness benefit in the way that the Amendment suggests. The right hon. Gentleman need not get so annoyed. The purpose of the Amendment was made

perfectly clear. It was to ensure that the case was put for the private insurance companies in whatever is to come out of our general review of social security and provision for retirement.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride away in his haughty manner and say, "After all, there is no profit in private sickness schemes" The debate has not been, in effect, about private sickness schemes at all. It has been about what will be the future of occupational pension provision. I say as a statement of fact, casting no aspersions against any hon. Gentleman, that, in the main, occupational pension provision can be a profitable matter for private insurance. If it were not a profitable matter, why should private insurance be in it? I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the remarks I made in answering a debate about what would be the future of private occupational pension schemes.
I stress again what I said earlier. We regard the private provision and the State provision as partners. The right hon. Gentleman, again not dealing with sickness benefit but with providing for old age, spoke about partnership. Partners? Judging from all that the right hon. Gentleman had said in the country, he wants the flat-rate pension to be a State provision, and extra provision for old age to be a matter for private insurance and occupational pensions in private industry. This is a strange partnership. It is not the kind that I want to see.
I want to ensure that in future State and private provision will be partners, ensuring that there will be pensions which will be transferable and which will be dynamic after retirement. The right hon. Gentleman has had great difficulty with this in the country. If he had wanted a debate on the future of occupational pensions he should have taken an Opposition Supply day—and I would have welcomed it—rather than use an Amendment dealing with sickness benefit to talk about the Opposition's deep concern on another matter.
As for the people who have contracted out, we also have been in contact with some of the gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. We know their points of view and I understand that they are willing


to wait until there are further developments as a result of the general review. I have made it perfectly clear that there will be every opportunity for consultation when we reach that stage. I do not know what more the Opposition want than the assurance that has been given and which is seemingly acceptable to the people concerned.
The provision of sickness benefit by private employers and the provision of benefit for those employed in nationalised industries or in the public service are matters which will have been taken into account already in private schemes. Private employers have already taken into account benefits paid now under the National Insurance scheme. No doubt employers will want to discuss with their employees what they will do as a result of the provisions of this Bill, and this seems to me to be the right way of going about the matter.

5.15 p.m.

Captain W. Elliot: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady continues to take this aggressive view of profits. The way in which she put the matter in her first speech seemed to indicate that some hon. Members were concerned to make profits at the expense of the sick, but she now appears to have shifted her ground to talk about insurance companies. I have remarked before that when a blanket scheme is produced and somebody tries to contract out, Socialists seem to have a built-in tendency to think that those people are doing something disreputable and that there is a trick behind it. The right hon. Lady displays those characteristics.
Profits, of course, come into it, and I should have thought that after 18 months in power Socialists would have begun to realise the importance of profits. If a company had a better scheme at a cheaper price to help its profits—not necessarily reflected in the balance sheet—would the right hon. Lady think that that was disreputable? A company might well have a sickness scheme and other schemes to improve labour relations and to ensure stability in its labour force.
I remember only too well that on Second Reading the right hon. Lady said that she had an intense interest in the National Plan. It is apparent that the reason for her interest is the so-called

4½ per cent. growth rate. We shall not get that growth rate without profits, and if we as a nation are to pay back our debts that payment can come only from profits. If the Socialist Government have not learned that yet, the country is in for a difficult time.

Mr. Gower: In seeking to justify the remarks which she made in her earlier speech the right hon. Lady got deeper into the mire. Her second contribution would have been perhaps a valid comment on her earlier statement in a different setting, but she knew from the attitude of my hon. and right hon. Friends that these are exploratory Amendments.

Miss Herbison: We have been told time and again that they are exploratory Amendments, but they are not exploratory of anything to do with the contents of the Bill but of what would be the future of occupational pension schemes.

Mr. Gower: The right hon. Lady is entitled to take that point of view, although I think that it is quite erroneous. But she went further. To any impartial observer the only conclusion to be drawn from her opening remarks was that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) was not making an objective intervention because in her view, far from being concerned about the welfare of people benefiting from the Clause, he was more concerned with insurance company profits. This is deplorable.

Sir K. Joseph: Unworthy.

Mr. Gower: Indeed, if he will allow me to say so, the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has not been of such a nature that he would derive any benefit from anything that would happen on that scale.
I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Lady will feel that it was perfectly in order for the Opposition collectively to make an important examination of the Clause, and that it was perfectly in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West and other to ascertain whether the right hon. Lady, in assessing the other methods of dealing with sickness benefit, had contemplated the possibility which they mentioned.
Immediately after we had heard the technical explanation which the right hon.


Lady gave, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) admitted without qualification that part of her answer was convincing. When the right hon. Lady thinks about it, she may well reflect that it is easy to impugn the motives of persons who make a statement, but far more magnaminous and wise to confess one's own error.

Mr. Dean: I very much regret that the right hon. Lady statrted the debate on such a note. When she reads HANSARD tomorrow she will find that nearly all the questions from this side were directly related to sickness benefit. She has answered some of them and has dealt with the complexities—which was one of the objectives of this probing Amendment. I ask her now merely to deal with a point that I raised but which she did not mention.
Are occupational schemes—by which I mean occupational sickness schemes—in the consultations that are to take place, to be based on the assumption that the present pattern, as represented in the Bill, is likely to continue? That is a perfectly legitimate point. Those outside running sickness schemes want some indication. Perhaps the right hon. Lady cannot give an answer now, but if she could say something about it it would considerably assist those interested.

Miss Herbison: When I intervened earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech I thought that I had made it clear by recalling what I said on Second Reading. I stressed then that this was an interim scheme and that the provisions would be reviewed in the light of the decisions arrived at after the general review. That is the position. This is an interim scheme because we want to get something done quickly for economic and social reasons. It may be that there will be changes, but I cannot tell at the moment.

Sir K. Joseph: Abuse should have no part in debate in this House, but if the right hon. Lady wishes to abuse anyone she should keep that abuse for a debate when she has not got a strong argument. In this debate she has a very strong argument, and a convincing one, and the abuse to which she descended was quite unnecessary. It is thoroughly abominable of her not to withdraw. She set the debate off on a thoroughly bad note. It was thoroughly unworthy of the subject.
However, we are concerned, as she is, to get on with the Bill. But I point out to her that we welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who made a constructive speech on Second Reading. Until he came in, together with a few other hon. Members opposite, except for the Front Bench and her Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Lady had been without the support of one of her hon. Friends for the last one and three-quarter hours. Perhaps, therefore, she was very brave to attack the entire Opposition. Nevertheless, we would like her to withdraw what she said and we shall think far better of her if she decides to do so.

Mr. Tiley: I think that we have had a very interesting debate and that our purpose in moving this Amendment has been fulfilled. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 25, at the end to add:
(3) The additional half or quarter per cent. of contribution payable under this section will not rank for graduated retirement benefit.
It is dangerous business to move an Amendment in this Committee stage, but I will try to make this one as clear as I can. It seeks to remove the extra contribution payable to add graduated retirement benefits to the retirement pension. We believe that the right hon. Lady must have had her tongue firmly in her cheek when drawing up this part of the Bill.
There are three strong reasons why it is most unlikely that the extra contribution payable will result over the years in any extra benefit of any substance. First, the right hon. Lady tells us time and time again that the Bill is interim. Secondly, she knows that we have said that we shall abolish the graduated pension scheme when we return to office. Thirdly, she has been so rude about the scheme herself that we do not think that it has very long to run in her hands.
How does she expect us, therefore, to take seriously the extra benefit that the contribution as drawn in the Bill is intended to yield? Let us look at the prospect of realisation of this extra benefit. How much might it be? The


right hon. Lady used to wax eloquent about what she called the "wretched return" for contributions under the graduated pension scheme. But the benefit proposed here will be exactly the same in quality and size as it would have been under the scheme she has attacked.
I remind the right hon. Lady that the basis of the graduated pension scheme is that every £7 10s. of contribution by the employee should be worth an extra 6d. on the graduated pension after retirement. I have done a few calculations. I may be wrong to the odd penny, but I think that I am broadly right as to scale. I calculate that if a man earns about £18 a week, which is near the average industrial earnings, and stays at £18 per week for 40 years—an unlikely supposition, but we have to deal in constant prices, as does the National Plan—the extra contribution will provide the munificent extra benefit of 6s. 6d. per week.
I would like to have heard the right hon. Lady or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster expatiating on that value for money. The right hon. Gentleman would have torn the pattern to tatters, but now he asks the Committee to accept this proposal of the Minister put, I am sure, with her tongue in her cheek.
The extra contribution will produce an extra benefit. It is true that the benefit will be pretty trifling in relation to the years over which the contribution will have been accumulated, but there will be some extra benefit—that we do not deny. The Government Actuary has spelt out how much the extra benefit will cost.
Extrapolating from Table 1 of column 4 of page 5 of the Report of the Government Actuary, it is fair to say that during the next decade extra graduated pension benefits due within the provisions of the Bill will cost the fund something like £15 million. The Committee must consider whether that £15 million is best spent in adding a basically insignificant amount, in terms of a year's average contribution, to the pension of those who have been contributing and are retired.
It is our suggestion that this sum of £15 million might be better spent. We propose not just the negative thing—although it is a legitimate point for an Opposition to make—that some extra benefit should not be made because it is not justifiable. In view of what happened

in the last debate, I had perhaps better emphasise that point. What we are saying is that this £15 million could be far better spent for the benefit of the public.
5.30 p.m.
Here I should like to remind the Committee of what the general outcome of the Bill will be. When an insured person is sick, he will be left to his own reserves, or those of his employer's scheme, for the first 12 days. Thereafter, for the next six months, if earning over £9 a week in a reckonable year, he will receive a graduated sickness benefit. After six months and 12 days, if the person concerned is still incapable of work because of sickness, he will revert to the flat-rate sickness benefit, and if his resources fall below the National Assistance scale, we all know that the National Assistance supplement will be available to help.
This is the situation which on Second Reading we called the switchback and which the right hon. Lady cannot admire objectively, but which she may have had to accept because of the interim nature of the Bill. That we understand. What we propose is that it would make far more sense in social and human terms if we used the £15 million, which from my rough assessment the Amendment would save the insurance fund, to provide the benefits in the new Clause, which would give to the chronic or long-term sick £1 per week benefit, which although probably not the final sum which the community will think just, would be something which would definitely help after the six months' graduated benefit had ceased to be payable, and that that extra £1 should be disregarded for National Assistance purposes.
The right hon. Lady will realise that this would produce a genuine benefit even for the poorest, if necessary, and we have drawn the new Clause in such a way that even where the earnings of a person precluded him from getting graduated benefit because they were below £9, or because of the 85 per cent. rule, there would still be the £1 a week invalidity benefit. That is the reason why we want to make the saving of £15 million. Having explained that, I now return to the Amendment itself.
The right hon. Lady will have to produce extremely good arguments to persuade us that this switch of National Insurance resources does not make sense


I remind her again that what we are saying is that the money which she proposes to spend on extra graduated pensions and which over the next 35 years adds up to a sum between £150 million and £200 million, although to only £15 million in the next ten years, would be better spent in other social ways. It is not for us in this debate to make strategic proposals for the whole of social security. What we are immediately concerned with is something which we can forecast, say, the next ten years. In that period, the extra spent on our new Clause will just about balance the money which we propose to save by this Amendment.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will not seek to distort in any way what we are proposing. If the Amendment is accepted, or, if not accepted, carried against the Government, then the Bill will be left with contributions which will pay for short-term benefits plus an invalidity allowance. The Bill as drawn pays for short-term benefits plus a small bonus on the graduated pension scheme. We think that the alternative which we propose makes social sense and we hope that the right hon. Lady will accept it in principle. Of course we shall be entirely satisfied if she accepts it in principle but asks us to withdraw it and the new Clause in order that the proposal may be set down in a more workmanlike form after consultation with her. What we are asking her to do is to address her mind to the principle that the money would be better spent in the way we suggest.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I must confess that I am greatly attracted to the proposal in the Amendment and the arguments advanced so cogently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I do not know whether he is right in saying that the Amendment would result in a saving of about £15 million. I have been making some calculations of my own and I think that over the years it would make a saving of at least that amount and probably more. The whole point, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, is that such a saving would be far better used by paying invalidity benefit for the long-term sick, or in providing some pension for those widows who at the moment do not draw any pension at all.
To my surprise—because I have a very high regard for her and we once walked hand in hand through India when she was a very fine colleague on a very notable delegation—the right hon. Lady earlier this afternoon charged hon. Members on this side of the Committee with being doctrinaire. That is a much overworked word, and in this context it was quite unworthy. So were the right hon. Lady's remarks on Second Reading when she said:
…the Tories still believe in the ' I'm all right Jack ' philosophy. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 54.]
adding that we did not believe in the Welfare State. That is untrue.
I think that it was Rousseau who said that definitions would be easy to make if one did not have to use words in order to make them. My definition of a true Welfare State is one which gives practical and timely help to those who really need it, and in an affluent society such as we enjoy in this country today this means and must increasingly mean selective provisions. It means getting rid of many of the inequities and little injustices with which our present social security system is riddled. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and we are all, irrespective of party, looking forward very much to the outcome of the review on which he has now been engaged for some time.
It was the late Nye Bevan who used to say with great sincerity and truth that Socialism was the language of priorities. We have moved on a great deal since then. Nowadays, in their egalitarian desire to share material blessings with everyone, the Government have virtually elevated the universality of benefits to the status of a religion. They want everyone to be treated alike, with the result that existing inequalities, far from being removed, are in relative terms, increased. We had an example of this only last week when debating a massive increase in the drug Bill, resulting from a doctrinaire decision, taken without regard to the consequences, to remove charges which many people are able to pay at a time when the National Health Service is desperately short of funds, in order to improve services which members on both sides believe to be essential. Returning


to the Amendment, it is clear that the extra graduated pensions earned for this extra contribution are not very large. As my right hon. Friend has said, they will be almost negligible.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Would he say that in the event of there being some substantial cuts or as a result of costs being kept down in the Defence Review, his party will support this fully so that more money can be available for the sort of developments he has suggested?

Mr. Braine: That is an extremely interesting question, but we are not discussing that today. I would be prepared to agree, however, and I think I would carry every single hon. and right hon. Member in the Committee with me, that if we could find more resources for our essential social services it would be grand, because most of them, and particularly health, in which I am especially interested, could do with a great deal more money. I would be straying from the Amendment if I followed the hon. Gentleman down that interesting path. I hope that on this important subject he will be able to bring his weight and authority to bear upon the Front Bench opposite, who have the responsibility of governing and defending this country.
In the case of those contracted out of the graduated scheme, the extra benefit would be derisory. It seems, then, that this is another example of the failure of the party opposite to get its priorities right. I noted that the right hon. Lady said that this was an interim measure and that there may well be adjustments, as she inferred, in the light of the review. I accept that. Then why bring the contracted out into the Bill? Where is the urgency? As I understand it, this Bill was given priority by those who are responsible for the Government's programme, because of the need to encourage greater mobility of labour. We on this side of the Committee agree that this is a matter of the highest priority, and there is no quarrel between the two sides of the Committee as to the main purposes of the Bill. But only a very small part of the benefits proposed will go to unemployment earnings graduated pay. Why is the Bill being used to bring in those who are contracted out? The hon. Lady

must come clean on this. For, as she said, this is an interim Bill and can be adjusted in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's review. Does the Clause which we are seeking to amend mean that the Government have decided against any contracting-out under its State half-pay on retirement scheme. That is the basic question, and I would hope that when the right hon. Lady comes to reply she will give the committee a very clear answer.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It seems that this Amendment provides the Government with an opportunity of disproving an allegation which is very freely made—and which I have certainly made on a number of occasions—that they are more concerned with administrative tidiness than with effecting the maximum relief of distress. I am sure that the Government will not let this opportunity slip and will give the lie to this accusation. This is an opportunity to concentrate the benefits in the near future rather than in the distant future. The effect of this Amendment will be to provide a tangible benefit from a period beginning very soon—looked at from the point of view of the average individual—rather than a benefit to which he can look forward in the very dim and distant future. One of the big considerations in social security is that people who, by and large, are in need of benefits now are those tending to be older than average, who have had less opportunity to make private provision for their old age, who have lived at a time when average earnings were lower and when living standards were lower.
It has always seemed that there is a very strong argument for increasing benefits now and tapering them off later. In the sense that this Amendment is a move in that direction, that it is providing for a tangible benefit to be paid out in the very near future, as against an imperceptible benefit stretched out over a great many years, this seems to be a move in the right direction. I hope that the right hon. Lady will show herself to be open-minded. As a new Member, I was rather appalled by the nature of her replies to the debate on the preceding Clause. I have understood that there was an atmosphere of co-operation in this Committee.


This is a Bill which we are as anxious to see on the Statute Book as are the Government, and we have done everything we can to facilitate their task. It seemed churlish, to say the least, that the right hon. Lady should make such totally unjustified accusations. I am sure that on this occasion we shall not hear anything of the sort from her.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I would like to join with those who have expressed pleasure that we have the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with us. The trouble is that we see him sitting there, we know that he is going to be sitting there for the rest of the day, and we know that the debate will continue tomorrow and that he is going to be there then, we hope. We therefore get a little worried that this may put off the review at which he is working hard. We hope that the review will not be too long delayed. We sometimes wonder whether it will be available before the next General Election.
I support the Amendment because it is in line with Conservative policy. We should concern ourselves with weighing what assistance we give to those who are the worst hit in the community. This includes those people who are sick in the long term. These people are not a very strong electoral factor, no political party gets a lot of votes out of them, but they are in need of the greatest help and the proposal made in this Amendment is that a certain amount of money should be shifted away from those who will be receiving pensions and who will, as a result of increases which will doubtless take place over the years, be reasonably well off, and used to help those people who after the six month period will go back to the flat level of sick payment. Most of these people are unemployable. Sadly, they look forward to a period, which may last for many years—

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. It seems to me, Sir Leslie, that we are trespassing on later Amendments. It will be difficult to deal with the Bill in this kind of wav.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Leslie Thomas): I thought that the hon. Member was getting a little near the line, but I hope that he will confine himself strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I accept what you have said, Sir Leslie. It is, however, difficult to suggest a saving of £15 million without also suggesting what might be done with it.

Mr. Braine: I think that it is perfectly legitimate for my hon. Friend to argue that if there is to be a saving, as undoubtedly there would be if the Amendment were accepted, it would be the intention of my hon. Friends on this side that the money should be devoted to higher priorities in the care of the long-term sick, for example, and to widows who do not at present get a pension.

Mr. Lewis: If there is a saving of £15 million—

The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order at this stage to discuss what should be done with the £15 million.

Mr. Lewis: Except that—

The Temporary Chairman: I have given a Ruling and I hope that the hon. Member will conform to it.

Mr. Lewis: I accept your Ruling, Sir Leslie. The difficulty in the argument so far is that the Minister has in previous discussions spoken about the profit motive. All that I was trying to make clear to her was that in this connection we do not want to make a profit. We do not want her Government to make a profit. We want to make sure that the money which is saved is used for a proper purpose. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment on that basis.

Mr. Martin Maddan: On one occasion shortly after my return to the House of Commons, I accepted a surprisingly sharp Ruling from you, Sir Leslie, about what I should and should not say. I hope that I shall not cause you to deliver any similar rebuke to me on this occasion. Having heard what you have just said, I will do my best to avoid it.
As the problem to which we have to address ourselves on the Amendment is the question of priorities, perhaps we can think in these terms. Is the 6s. 6d. benefit which it is proposed to add to the pension really a first priority that we should consider and pass into law by a vote of the House of Commons? When we are thinking of this, we must think


of it in the context of what is done by the Government, political thinking generally and also what employers do to help to alleviate distress of one sort or another.
Many employers give short-term help to the sick. Therefore, from that point of view, the problem of the short-term sick is not a great worry. To the longer-term sick, however, it is a problem. That is the contrast that I wish to point out. The problem tackled by the Minister's proposals is of a lesser priority than that of the long-term sick. It is in this sense that I support the Amendment.

Sir Tatton Brinton: I add my support to the Amendment in the hope that I, too, will not be ruled out of order as it is somewhat difficult to support the Amendment by itself without indicating where the money which would be saved should go. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who said that we should concentrate our benefits more upon the present-day problems than upon the longer-term problem in terms of pension.
I should like to make one short point in support of that contention. The people who have the biggest financial problems are those in their middle years when they are most likely to fall sick at work. They are the people who probably have children to bring up or other family responsibilities, and they are most hard hit. Many of those people would much rather have the certainty of an extra £1 a week for a year when they were, perhaps, incapacitated—as, unfortunately, happens; it is by no means uncommon—by either sickness or injury than the prospect of a considerably smaller amount at a much more distant date when they might find it easier to live on a lower income.

Miss Herbison: It might be better if I intervene at this time. There is much in what has been said by hon. Members opposite with which I agree. Much of it, however, was outside the Amendment and we shall be dealing with it on later Amendments.
My reply to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) is that we have nothing to hide concerning the Amendment. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) was quite right in saying that many people—for example, the chronic

sick—would rather have £1 a week immediately on in six months' time than have a few coppers added to their pension a considerable time ahead in the future.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who moved the Amendment, discussed the existing graduated pension scheme. He showed, perhaps more clearly than anyone else could show, how little benefit it would bring to workers in the future. That has always been our criticism. It was not our scheme. When we had to decide that the ½ per cent. should count towards pension purposes, we realised that this would mean a very small addition to the pension in the future.
Again, I stress that this is an interim scheme. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has spoken about the £15 million that will be spent over the next ten years if the Amendment is not accepted. I assure him that we will have our full scheme in operation at the end of the review long before then. The present graduated pension scheme will have been replaced long before that. I have said these things at the outset to show that we are not claiming any great benefit for the pensioner in the future when we say that the ½ per cent. will count for pension purposes.
When we were preparing the Bill as it affected short-term earnings-related benefits, we found that the additional contributions could not be excluded in accounting for graduated pension without considerable extra work for employers. That was one of the biggest difficulties with which we were faced.
Under our proposals in the Bill, employers will be supplied, as at present, with contribution tables showing the appropriate amount of contribution to be paid for each level of earnings. All that an employer will have to do is to read off one amount each week or month, depending on whether a worker is paid weekly or monthly, and record it. He will have only to read one amount and record it. If part of the amount were excluded from accounting for graduated pensions, the employer would have to record two separate figures, one of them amounting to only a few pence, each time. It is necessary to enable our central office at Newcastle to tell what


amount should be entered in the pension account by the computer, and how much should not. If we accepted the Amendment, unless there were a great deal of extra work to be put upon employers, it would really be almost impossible to do this.
Again, because of the possible variation in earnings and the duration of employment in the tax year, it would be difficult, and in many cases impossible, indeed, to determine, from a single entry alone, how much should be excluded.
6.0 p.m.
It is because of these difficulties that we propose that the contribution should count for pension purposes in this interim scheme, not because of any lack of thought on the various alternative ideas, but merely because of the serious administrative difficulties on our side and the heavier burden on the employers' side, in the time this will run till our new complete scheme is in operation. This is the only sensible thing to do, to allow this extra graduated contribution on account.
It will be a very small sum—indeed, almost a negligible sum—in the time before we have our full scheme going that will come in for pension purposes, and if we want to get the scheme going in the autumn this is the only sensible way of doing it.
I am sure that hon. Members, having heard that explanation, will be ready to accept that it really was done this way because of the impossibility of the burden on employers and the impossibility of differentiating at Newcastle.

Sir K. Joseph: I must say that I am not at all satisfied with that answer. First of all, we are told that we should treat the whole of this as absolute nonsense, and the Government Actuary's Report as all merely rubbish. The right hon. Lady said we can ignore Table I, that it is all rigmarole. This is not the way to produce a Bill for this Committee. If the Bill is to be superseded in so short a time let us have the relevant tables and the relevant facts.
Are all of us to waste our time studying tables and documents for the right hon. Lady then to dispose of them in such a casual way at that Box? Then she treats us to some rigmarole of semi-digested

technological excuse—and this is the right hon. Lady who read this side of the Committee lectures about using computers to do all the administratively difficult tasks which, she said, remained to be done when she came into office. Now, at her first technological difficulty which she comes across, she gives way to it.
Well, I suppose I had better start at the beginning and go over this again. Obviously, the right hon. Lady has not appreciated the point here.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope the right hon. Member is not going to give us tedious repetition.

Sir K. Joseph: Obviously, I must not. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) put the substance of the case exceptionally well, and I think that the right hon. Lady took the point he was making, that there are priority needs which are not at the moment satisfied.
The right hon. Lady expressed herself as in some sympathy with one step which we cannot discuss now and which comes in New Clause 1, but she said that it was no good discussing this for two reasons, first, that there is no such thing as £15 million to dispose of, because this outgoing will not occur, and, secondly, she said, "We poor Ministers were forced by the argument to do what we did not want to do and make this contribution reckonable for graduated benefit."
Did the right hon. Lady consider the simple solution of gathering in the employers' part of the contribution by way of payroll tax? Did the right hon. Lady consider how much easier it would be if there were no personal account to be kept for each individual case? There would be, if our Amendment were accepted, no credit for graduated benefit. This would then release her to gather in money, at least so far as the employer is concerned, by a payroll levy—½ per cent. over £9 a week up to £30 a week. The right hon. Lady will not expect me to spell out in detail what I have in mind.
It is true that she would then be left with the administrative problem of collecting the ½ per cent. from each employee. She would still need a bookkeeping entry, but, as I understand it, it is not beyond the power of computers to be told to deduct from the credit for


graduated pension benefit 5 per cent., 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., whatever proportion the surplus imposed by the Bill bears to the basic graduated pension contribution. If it is ½ per cent. on 4½ per cent. then it is two-seventeenths and the computer would be instructed to ignore two-seventeenths of the contribution without working out graduated pension credit. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) nodding his head in agreement. I remember on a Bill about radioactive substances, his harrying me with his technological knowledge, which exceeds mine, so I am glad to have his agreement.
If that can be done, we are left with a solution which seems to me to impose no administrative problem on the Minister. But then we are left with this simple excuse that the whole of the prognostications with which this Bill has been brought forward are rubbish. The right hon. Lady was on very weak ground in taking as she did the Government Actuary's Report. Obviously, I am not for a moment criticising the Government Actuary himself, but when the right hon. Lady says that we can ignore everything beyond the first year I wish she would take seriously the £15 million saving over the next 10 years, and I hope she will reconsider her position on this. We shall for our part have to consider seriously what steps we take about this Government document if she is seriously telling us it should not be taken seriously.
As for the technological difficulties, I wonder how many experts the right hon. Lady consulted. Did she seek advice about what could or could not be administratively feasible? Did the right hon. Lady reckon the amount of benefit which this Amendment, if accepted, would be likely to achieve? There are relatively few of these chronic sick, and this amount of money could bring very—well, I was about to exaggerate—bring benefit to them.
I would have hoped that the right hon. Lady would have approached this proposition with something more than a technologically sterile response. We would like her to be sympathetic to the objective. We would like her to say to us that she will look again at the administrative difficulties, and we would like to know how soon her right hon. Friend will

be introducing his plan—and whether it will be acceptable to the House. The right hon. Lady cannot assume that her proposals, or the Government's proposals, are necessarily going to have this projected outgo, and nor should the right hon. Lady assume the acceptability of her proposals to the House. The right hon. Lady is treating us with less than courtesy and an important pair of Amendments with less than proper consideration when she gives an answer such as she has given. I hope that she will reconsider it.

Mr. John Page: I, too, was extremely dissatisfied with the answer of the right hon. Lady. To give the excuse for the administrative difficulty that the computer at York—[HON. MEMBERS: "Newcastle."] Yes, I am sorry. Mention of the Newcastle central office made me feel that there was a great change afoot, but now I understand.
To make the excuse that the computer at Newcastle could not do the computation is quite extraordinary. There is nothing simpler. It could very easily be programmed, and it is known that that computer is working particularly well, unlike another which I happened to see today which cannot work because the Postmaster-General is unable to get a telephone to it.
I ask the right hon. Lady to withdraw that part of her excuse and stick to the more basic objection which is contained in the second part of her speech.

Mr. Heffer: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that he is aware of the existence of that wonderful computer, yet he is not sure whether it is at Newcastle or York?

Sir T. Brinton: I do not understand the right hon. Lady's reasoning when she says that an employer would have to fill in two separate entries. She told us herself that her Ministry produces tables showing that if a man earns so much in a week, the amount to be deducted is so much. One knows, therefore, by the sum which is deducted and which ultimately goes to her Ministry and thence to the computer, how much the man earns and how much has been deducted. Surely it will be known how much represents the ½ per cent. and how much the original 4¼ per cent. which was payable before.
I wish that the right hon. Lady would explain to us why that apparently simple mathematical calculation is so difficult even for a human being, much less for a computer.

6.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I am very surprised at the synthetic indignation of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He accuses me of being angry, but each time that he comes to the Dispatch Box he seems to be in a raging temper about something.
I want to take up one or two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. He said that in my reply I was saying that the Government Actuary's Report was a rigmarole. Really, I was not saying anything of the kind. If one considers what the Government Actuary has to do on any such proposals, it is clear that he has to project calculations for a great many years ahead. The Government Actuary did the job that was necessary, and all of us have a copy of the Report.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that we cannot assume that the Government will continue. That is true. In the work that we have done we cannot assume that we will continue in office, and when the Government Actuary is working out his figures for his actuarial report, he has to work them out on the scheme as it is and project them into the future. That is what the Government Actuary has to do, and that is what he has done.
Then we have to look at the scheme, and again I stress that it is an interim scheme. The big problem that we had to face if we were not to let this contribution go for pension purposes was the overburdening of the employer. The right hon. Gentleman thought that he had found the solution in a possible payroll tax. Then it suddenly struck him—and I could see it come to his mind—that there is then the worker's contribution, and a payroll tax would be of no help to us for that. It would mean two entries for the employer.

Mr. William Baxter: Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire) rose—

Miss Herbison: This is rather technical, and I want to make it as clear as I

can. If my hon. Friend has a point, I will deal with it afterwards.
As I say, it means two entries, and on the question of the computer, of course one can get a computer to do almost anything if one has time to do the programming. But this arrangement has to work by the autumn of this year, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have realised the difficulties.
For the short period in which the interim scheme will be going until the complete scheme is ready, there is very little time available for the benefits that hon. Members quite rightly hope to discuss later. The scheme continues for an interim period. The £15 million that hon. Members want to spend in various ways would continue well into the future. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken that into account, particularly in the light of this being an interim scheme.
I hope now that I have dealt with the points raised by all hon. Members and that they will realise that there was no ulterior motive behind our having this provision. It is a provision that will be examined with the whole scheme when we come to the complete review.

Sir T. Brinton: Before the right hon. Lady sits down, I am still completely in the dark as to why we require two entries. Much has been made of the inconvenience to the employer and, if that is a valid point, one accepts it. But I do not understand why.
A person earning a certain amount will be due to pay so much. One looks at the tables, and sees that a person earning, say, £31 2s. 6d. will pay so much, and that requires one entry. It is already obvious from the amount paid how much of that represents respectively the old 4¼ per cent., the new ½ per cent. and the new extra slice over £18. It must be obvious how that is split up, and there can be no problem. That single sum is fed into a computer, and one has an individual accounting for every person in respect of each scheme. Where is the difficulty? The computer can split that up without any trouble at all. Why have there to be two separate entries? The right hon. Lady was merely saying that that is so, without explaining why.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for continuing her explanation, and I hope that she will answer my hon. Friend's question.
I am an employer. I am in business, and I am ready to concede full value to the convenience of employers and to administrative cost. But this is the second Amendment where we are being asked to reject something that may or may not be inherently desirable because of the administrative costs for the employer, and we must balance these factors. In the first case, I think that we all accept that the administrative costs and complexities of a private contracted-out sickness scheme were possibly not worth the £35 million that might be saved on the employee and employer. We made our decision on that.
Now we come to a similar question. We have here a possible saving, and the right hon. Lady adjures us to take Table I seriously. We have here a potential saving of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. The right hon. Lady says that her Review will come forward shortly. Let us at least make sensible arrangements for the Insurance Fund money until the Government of the day succeed in changing the social security system of the country.
I believe—and I think that my hon. Friends agree with me—that if, administratively, we can switch this money from the negligible extra graduated benefit to some such proposal as is in New Clause 1, it would be socially sensible to do so. The right hon. Lady is not seeking to deal with that argument, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) asked her again why the second entry is necessary, and I hope that she will give us a reply to that.
We on this side of the Committee are prepared to say that even if it does involve a second entry we still think that it does not justify spending this money, even if it is only some hundreds of thousands of, or a few million, pounds, on something which has no objective worthwhile social purpose to justify it. It is an administrative by-product, and the right hon. Lady is not trying to suggest otherwise.
Let us try to address our minds, and ask the right hon. Lady to address hers,

to avoiding this waste of resources by using this money as a mere administrative by-product, and make it available for social purposes. We ask her yet again to undertake to reconsider this, and in the meanwhile to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend. If she cannot answer it satisfactorily, and will not give the assurance that she will reconsider our case, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. Charles Curran: The right hon. Lady asks us to reject the Amendment for two reasons. She says that it is administratively very difficult, and then she says that it is not worth tackling because we shall soon have the report of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the overhaul of the social services. I do not propose to say anything at all about the first of her reasons, the administrative difficulties. The point has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
It seems to me that if at every stage in this debate we are to be told that this is an interim Bill, and that there is no need to bother very much about it because presently the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will bring in his social security review, we ought to be given more information about it. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady can give us any idea of when we may get this review. Perhaps it is not fair to ask her, but as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is sitting on that Front Bench, perhaps we might ask him to tell us. He sits there silently throughout debates like a brooding Buddha.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not continue to press this question of the review, because it is entirely outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Curran: With respect, Sir Leslie, the argument which is being put to us is that we need not press the Amendment because this is merely a stopgap Bill, that presently the review will come along and will wash away all our fears. I submit, therefore, that it is reasonable to ask to be told a little more about when the review will be completed. If the right hon. Lady is not able to answer that, and perhaps she is not, I suggest that we


ask her ministerial colleague who appears to have joined our Dumb Friends League.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) is worried about us not being able to separate the contribution for pension purposes from the contribution for short-term benefits. The basic problem here is that the contribution is to be 4¾ per cent. only on earnings from £9 to £18. We are building it on top of the present graduated scheme. That scheme has a contribution of 4¼ per cent. When the ½ per cent. goes on that, it will make it 4¾ per cent. on earnings between £9 and £18. On earnings between £18 and £30 it will be ½ per cent., so that on earnings which exceed £18 it will not be possible to calculate the exact part which the ½ per cent. graduated contribution represents of the total contribution. As that is the case, what we have suggested seems the only sensible thing to do.

Sir T. Brinton: Sir T. Brinton rose—

Miss Herbison: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this point, I will give way to him.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said that this was being done for administrative reasons. The important thing to remember is that, for economic reasons, it was necessary to get this scheme going by the autumn. If there had not been economic reasons for doing that then the Bill may not have been introduced until we had completed the review and were able to bring in the whole scheme. But, for economic reasons, the Government decided that this Measure should be brought in as early as possible, and that the benefits should begin to be paid as early as possible. The suggestions made by hon. Gentlemen opposite would bring us up against administrative difficulties which would make it impossible to pay this money in the autumn of this year.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the review would be completed, or when we would be ready to bring forward legislation to deal with the whole matter. I assure him that we are getting on with this job. This Bill is the first part of the whole programme,

and is an interim Measure. Immediately the review is completed, we will inform the House.

Sir T. Brinton: It is possible that I shall bore the Committee by pursuing this point, but I must say bluntly to the right hon. Lady that I hope her abilities as a Minister are better than her mathematics.
The situation is simply this. We know what percentages have to be accounted for on each part of the income. With a slide rule and a piece of paper I could within half an hour draw up a table from which the right hon. Lady could read the amount deductible in respect of any salary between £9 and £30 a week. It would tell the right hon. Lady exactly how much of each figure was represented by the new ½ per cent. Nothing could be simpler. It would require only one entry, and it would be valid on incomes between £9 and £30. I am sorry to contradict the right hon. Lady, but I think that with a little thought she will realise that she has not got a valid point.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is convinced now that her explanation has not satisfied this side of the Committee. She gave two reasons for not accepting the Amendment. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) pointed out, administrative difficulties, but we are beginning to believe that these difficulties are of doubtful substance. She went on to admit that if there were no such administrative difficulties the suggestion made in the Amendment was a valuable one. She confessed that it might have attractions if there were not administrative difficulties, but then, as though she had confessed too much, she said that she could not contemplate applying the principle of the Amendment, because later on there would be the review.
In other words, she was saying, "These are desirable things, but we will not have them now because we shall have more desirable things later". This is an astonishing suggestion. It is as if her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say, "We will not have a Budget this year because we shall have a bigger and better Budget next year". This is astonishing. I hope that she will reconsider if not the terms of


the Amendment at least her objections to it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: On the question of this information being fed into the computer, I want to ask the right hon. Lady a very simple question, the answer to which may help her and us. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) made a valid point, that the change of programming required is miniscule on one understanding, that, every time a graduated contribution is made—I am putting to the right hon. Lady rather complicated questions which we have been bandying to and fro and I was on the point of asking whether she would kindly give her attention to it. I am making a very precise point.
The point is that what my hon. Friend has said must be valid, with one proviso—that, every time an entry or deduction

for graduated pensions is made on behalf of people paid weekly or monthly, it is fed into the memory drum of the computer as one item and is not somehow accumulated with others over a time. If it is accumulated for three or four months at a time, I can see that, with varying wages and salaries, this might be so. However, I find it hard to believe that it is not fed into the memory drum every time.

Since the Minister has clearly studied this carefully and gone into these administrative problems in great detail, will she tell us whether each time there is a deduction this information is fed, perse, into the memory drum of the computer?

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 167.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[6.32 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp; Crom'ty)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
McLaren, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'ffrord &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gammans, Lady
Maginnis, John E.


Barlow, Sir John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maydon, Lt. -Cmdr. S. L. C.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bessell, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Onslow, Cranley


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Buxton, Ronald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Campbell, Gordon
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pounder, Rafton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chataway, Christopher
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kilfedder, James A.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Curran, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
Lagden, Godfrey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longbottom, Charles
Temple, John M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorpe, Jeremy




Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Whitelaw, William
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Walters, Dennis
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. R. W Elliott and




Mr. George Younger.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hale, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Alldritt, Walter
Hamiton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Hannan, William
Owen, Will


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Joel
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Baxter, William
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pargiter, G, A.


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Bence, Cyril
Horner, John
Parker, John


Bennett, J, (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Binns, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Howie, W.
Popplewell, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W, (Leics. S. W.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rankin, John


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Richard, Ivor


Buchanan, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James(Klston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Symonds, J. B,


Driberg, Tom
McCann, J.
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dunnett, Jack
McInnes, James
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
MacMillan, Malcolm
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Marsh, Richard
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Garrow, A.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Grey, Charles
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oakes, Gordon
Mrs. Harriet Slater and


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Tiley: The right hon. Lady complained that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is always angry when he speaks from this Box. We know that she has a tiger in her tank; there is not much of her, but we know that she is there.
It was a pity that we started the debate earlier this afternoon on the wrong foot.
I do not wish to prolong that atmosphere, but when she mentions profits, I ought to suggest that it is time that the word "profits", throughout the country and by both parties, was looked at in a better way than the vicious way in which it has been looked at sometimes from the Government benches and in the trade unions.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about


unemployment. I know personally that when the textile firms of Bradford were not making profits a quarter of the working strength of our city was on the dole and out of work. It is only from profits that we can find this £38 million for the contribution of industry and commerce.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that many of the large insurance companies are mutual companies with no shareholders; the whole of the profits belong to the members and the policy holders. In defence of myself I feel entitled to say that.
6.45 p.m.
The right hon. Lady takes it as a personal affront sometimes when we ask questions. I wish that she would not do so, because the purpose of our being here is to debate this very important Bill. We have had a very good debate. During the afternoon we have cleared up some important details in the process of the cut and thrust of debate. We regret it if she thinks that we are attacking her personally; our comments are not made with that purpose at all.
There was a doubt about the philosophy and practice of contracting out because of the manner in which contracting out had been deleted by the Clause. The right hon. Lady told us that our doubts are not founded on fact. She has removed the fears which we may have had about the philosophy and practice of contracting out. If we had not had this debate, that fact would not have been established. It has been established not only in our minds, but in the country.
The right hon. Lady also confirmed that there will always be a place for both Government and private insurance when we are dealing with sickness benefits or pensions. She said that they are partners in the job of dealing with this great social service. All this is very important for the future of the country's trade. It is important to both sides of the Committee and also to industry and commerce. Moreover, it is important in other parts of the world where people are buyers of this commodity which we in Britain make better than does any other country. The right hon. Lady, therefore, should be glad that she had the chance to give this confirmation.
I pay tribute to her in that when we ask questions, she answers them. Some

times Ministers do not do that. She has a great knowledge of this technical and complicated Bill and it is interesting for us to sit back and listen to her answers. We are grateful for the attention which she has given to the dozens of questions which have been asked.
We asked, rightly, whether there had been consultations. No matter how cross she looked when she was replying, we established that there had been consultations, and that was the knowledge which we were seeking. We were glad to know that consultations had taken place. During the discussion it became clear that the right hon. Lady was aware that there had been a deviation from the original meaning of hundreds of service contracts and certain other contracts of employment—in the Civil Service, the coal mines, the Transport Commission and teaching. The fact that she was aware of this came out in the debate, and that was what we wanted to ascertain. It can do only good to the future of the Bill and of the social service scheme that all these points have been cleared up.
The right hon. Lady was also asked why contracting out was not permitted, and she gave a detailed explanation showing that it was very difficult to permit contracting out. We were told in the debate that contracting out had not been summarily dismissed because it was a theory to which the Government did not wish to subscribe but that it had been deleted from the Bill because of the difficulties which it would bring in the administration of the scheme both at Government level and in industry.
We have a right to know these things. After all, the purpose of our discussion today is to gain information from the Government. It is not merely a question of you, Mr. Bowen, announcing, "Clause 1"—whereupon we all nod. We are not little nodders. We are serious and sensible debaters and, so far today, we have been doing our job well.
In the large-scale review which we have heard so much about, and which is now taking place, I trust that consideration is being given to the question of simplifying the whole procedure with which we are involved. Earlier today I had a chat with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the corridor and we both confessed how befogged we were becoming because of the multitude of Measures which each


Government introduce on this subject. We are equally befogged by the fractions which must be worked out. In Clause 1 there is reference to 4¼ per cent., 4¾ per cent. and ½ per cent., in addition to which there are stamps at this, that and another price. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) understands the workings of computers because if things go on as they are we will need computers to comprehend the meaning of Bills.
It would not be divulging great secrets in the closed shop that is going on about the review which is taking place if the Minister said that the present complicated arrangements were receiving consideration. Things are becoming extremely difficult as Measures of this sort get more complex. That is all I will say on this issue because I do not wish to delay the Committee and I have no intention of speaking about the Amendment on which we just voted.
The right hon. Lady referred to the graduated pension scheme and said that it provides little benefit. She agreed that to the little benefit that is provided the Government are adding even littler benefits. It is indeed true that the scheme provides only small payments and we all appreciate what a difficult task it is to provide the substantial benefits which we would like to see paid. We are seeking in Parliament a way to provide really substantial retirement benefits, but they can be provided only by hard work and the saving of a substantial amount of money.
We must remember that, without the help of the social services, it would take a man 40 years—from the age of 25 to 65—to save enough to provide a comparable retirement pension with which to lead a comparatively happy life. We are trying to make that provision not in 40 years, but in just a few years, and we are operating without any past savings having accrued. It is, therefore, doing great harm constantly to speak of the graduated pension scheme as being a swindle, as it is sometimes called.
When the word "swindle" is used in that context one should consider where the millions of pounds that were collected via the scheme have gone. About six months ago it was stated in the House that more than £800 million had been

collected in contributions under the graduated pension scheme. It should be remembered that half of that came from industry and commerce in the form of employers' contributions and the other £400 million from the contributors.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): On a point of order. Is not this explanation of the ramifications of the graduated pension scheme out of order on this Question?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Roderic Bowen): I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going rather wide of the Question before the Committee. While he is in order in making a passing reference to the Scheme, he should not develop his argument too far along that line.

Mr. Tiley: I did not intend to develop it much further, Mr. Bowen, and I accept your rebuke. I was merely answering the charge which is constantly made about the smallness of the benefits provided under the graduated pension scheme.
As I was saying, about £800 million has been collected—but that has already been paid out. Our old people have had that money in their pockets and have spent it. If the Government had not introduced this Measure I wonder where we would have got the extra money from. I am not indulging in political propaganda. This is sheer common sense. The money comes from those who work and contribute, in the same way as the money we are providing in Clause 1. I have asked only one question—about a possible simplification of the present arrangements—and I trust that the right hon. Lady will answer it.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) asked one question which I will answer immediately. He wants to know when our review will be completed and whether we will have a social security system which covers all the various benefits in a simpler system than the one which now exists. I cannot give him a precise answer, or a categorical "Yes", but my hope is that that will be the case.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we have taken steps in the Bill to get rid of some anomalies and to achieve simplification in some parts of the scheme. We have tried to do that even in this


interim Measure. It is my strong hope that when the final proposals come before the House a real attempt will have been made to achieve simplification.
Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown their desire to discuss the graduated pension scheme at length. I would be delighted if the Opposition chose a Supply day to debate the whole question of provision for retirement. I will merely say at this stage that, while the hon. Member for Bradford, West pointed to some good points in favour of the scheme, his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has, here and elsewhere, made it perfectly clear that the graduated pension scheme will go.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(BENEFIT UNDER INSURANCE ACT BY WAY OF EARNINGS-RELATED SUPPLEMENT.)

7.0 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 39, at the end to insert:
or in the case of unemployment, not earlier than the fourth day".
We come to the Clause which deals with graduated benefits. One of the biggest questions the Government have had to consider is whether they should have made the benefits for unemployment and sickness the same. I am leaving widows and industrial injuries out of my argument since it seems that the principal area of potential difference is between employment and sickness.
I do not want to exaggerate the benefit which we think the Amendment might have.
This Bill claims its origin, I think, from the Report of the National Economic Development Council some four years ago which put great stress on the economic importance to the country of mobility of labour. The N.E.D.C. said that it would help mobility of labour if some of the sting of unemployment could be withdrawn. No one, of course, would pretend that we can make unemployment painless. For this purpose, the N. E.D.C. urgently suggested that unemployment pay should be related to earnings.
Both the Government of the day and the Opposition of the day—and they have now changed places—took kindly to that idea, and the Government of the day entered into discussions with the employers' organisations and the Trades Union Congress. It was then, I think, that it became plain that the T.U.C. was particularly anxious that sickness should be dealt with in the same way as unemployment. To its understanding or desire that this should be so there was added as reinforcement the fear that it might be impracticable to separate the two.
I have heard it said that if unemployment and sickness benefit were to be substantially apart, there would be an incentive to people to make their incapacity for work fall into the slot that paid them best, and pictures have been drawn of people who were really sick dragging themselves to the employment exchanges so as to qualify for unemployment benefit. We should like to know the Government's views on this issue. If it is true, and if it is administratively unavoidable, it is a pretty sufficient answer to the Amendment, but we should like to know how true it is.
It seems to me that there are here two quite separate safeguards. If men or women claim to be sick they need a doctor's certificate. If they claim to be unemployed, presumably they are in possession of their tax cards, and have to satisfy the labour exchange that they are not really masquerading. The suggestion that someone will pretend to be sick when he is really unemployed, if the sickness benefit is the more advantageous, assumes that the doctor will play a deceitful part in the operation. The suggestion that a man will pretend to be unemployed when he is sick, if the unemployment benefit is the more advantageous, assumes that the employment exchange will pay him although he is not in possession of his cards.
It may well be that I am over-simplifying, but I must point out that there are in Europe at least two major countries in which unemployment and sickness benefit do not necessarily march together. I have not gone deeply into this—I have only the one sheet of paper in front of me. In France, the definition of both unemployment and sickness benefit is so complicated—with different components


coming from different sources, and the amount varying in different regions—that the only thing it is possible to say with any certainty is that the two are not identical. In Germany, paradoxically to me, it is the sickness benefit which is usually higher than the unemployment benefit. That seems rather odd to me, but there, again, the two are not identical. I therefore do not think that the right hon. Lady can claim that all countries find the same difficulty and so have to make the benefits identical.
All this would be a waste of time if there were not some reason for thinking, as we have reason for thinking, that there is economic justification for making unemployment pay slightly more advantageous. We feel that the community stands to benefit if the man or woman who is unemployed can straight away turn round and seek another job without having to worry himself or herself sick about maintaining the standard of living of the home for the immediate one or two weeks before the graduated benefits payable under the Bill begin. That is why we seek to give the Government a chance to give us their thinking and, if necessary, to undertake to consider this provision again.
We think that there would be an advantage in letting the benefit for unemployment start without the long 12-day waiting period. The right hon. Lady could say that in the case of unemployment there are some people who might be encouraged by that to malinger. That may be so—I do not know. I have never been one who believed that malingering should be over-stressed. There is an element of malingering, and I think that over-generous treatment could encourage it, but I also think that we are wrong to put it as our first consideration. But it is true that if we make the graduated unemployment benefit too easily available, it might encourage some undesirable practices.
The right hon. Lady will no doubt give us her judgment on that, but what we would like her to consider, first and foremost is this. Bearing in mind the N.E.D.C. 's first recommendation that started the Bill on its Government life, does she not think that it would take more of the sting out of unemployment than the Bill provides if the graduated

unemployment benefit started earlier than the graduated sickness benefit?
I take it that the Minister will not object to my leaving out of my arguments the provisions for industrial injuries and widowhood. These are a quite separate consideration, and we think that the 12-day waiting period is not unreasonable. I hope that the right hon. Lady will give us a fairly full answer, and we should like to have a chance to consider it. We are not absolutely confident that our Amendment would give the right balance of advantage, but we would like to hear the right hon. Lady's views—and, of course, the views of other hon. Members.

Mr. Heffer: I said on Second Reading that on certain questions I found myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). In the present instance, I am not entirely in agreement with him, but I think that the question requires the closest examination. As someone who in the past has always considered that the three waiting days, as they are known in industry, have been an imposition, I feel that this present provision will be considered an even greater imposition by industrial workers. I also fear that it is not likely to effect the greater mobility of labour which the Measure is designed to encourage but rather that it could have the opposite effect.
Strange though it may seem, I think that the malingering element could develop as a result of the 13 waiting days for the extra benefit. If a man receives the extra benefit almost from the word "Go", those people who want to find employment quickly will find it in any case, and it will be an added incentive for them to move around to find that employment; or, if they are offered employment in other places, they will have sufficient money to make the move.
The malingerer could say, "I will keep out of employment for at least 13 days in order to receive the additional benefits at the end of that time". We must take that factor into consideration. I do not suggest that malingering is a usual practice. My experience has been that when a working man becomes unemployed he wants to find other employment as soon as possible, because there is nothing more undignified than being unemployed. I know this from personal experience. I


ask that this matter should be looked at again.
Where I differ from the right hon. Member—I suppose that I am guilty for not putting down an Amendment in this direction—is that I think there has always been a very powerful case for the sickness and unemployment benefits to be equal. I have always argued this. I understand the view which the T.U.C. takes of this matter. I ask my right hon. Friend, so far as concerns the 13 waiting days, what discussion, if any, has taken place with the T.U.C. on this aspect of the Bill? Perhaps she will develop that point in her reply.
This is a very important matter. I hope that the Government will have another look at it and possibly come forward later with an Amendment if they are not prepared to accept the Amendment before us now.

Mr. Dean: I am glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised those extremely interesting points. I wish to refer to some other matters.
The right hon. Lady, in her Second Reading speech, when mentioning the 12 waiting days, said, as reported in column 40 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day:
This waiting time is necessary to ensure that the supplement does not have to be calculated for the very large number of very short-term spells of incapacity or unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 40.]
This is our old friend the administrative argument, which we are getting used to in these debates, coming out again.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether we can be sure that the needs are not different in these two cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the hon. Member for Walton referred to this. It seems that there is a very strong case for saying that any additional benefit of this kind should start earlier for unemployment than for sickness. I believe that to be so for two main reasons. In a very large number of cases a sick employee would be covered anyway for a short period. He may not be covered in every case by a formal agreement, but, in practice, the large bulk of such employees

would be covered for a short period.
That surely is not so in the case of unemployment. In the bulk of the cases where a man becomes unemployed, unless he happens to be among the small number of cases which would have some benefit under the new redundancy scheme, the chances are that there would be nothing or very little coming from the employer. I leave aside the question of tax relief because that complicates the matter. For these two reasons there is a very strong case for saying that benefit should start earlier for unemployment than for sickness.
7.15 p.m.
The argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-East about mobility of labour and assisting someone who is unemployed to get a new job as quickly as possible is very relevant. We are dealing with someone who no longer has a job. In the case of sickness we are dealing with an entirely separate problem. The employer is still present, but the man is incapable of doing his job at that time. When a man is looking for a new job the benefit should start earlier than when he is sick.
It may well be that the administrative difficulties are too great and that the possibilities of people changing from one payment to another in order to try to get whatever will benefit them most are real. There is surely an effective measure of control to deal with that problem. A man can draw sickness benefit only if a doctor has issued a medical certificate. He can obtain unemployment benefit only if he is available and reporting regularly for work. I cannot see that it should be impossible to overcome this problem if the principle is believed to be established.

Mr. Curran: I, also, ask the right hon. Lady to explain in some detail the reason for providing this particular period. I do not want to repeat the arguments about the relation between the period for sickness benefit and the period for unemployment benefit. I wish to put a rather different point.
I invite the right hon. Lady to look at the facts about the contemporary labour market and to agree that there are two, among others, which strike the eye. The first is that the wage level is far higher than it used to be. That is


something we all welcome. Therefore, the economic shock when a man loses his job is a very serious one; it is immediate and severe. That seems to be a very powerful reason for seeking to mitigate the shock as much as possible.
We may like it or may not, but it is not the case that all people with high wages practise the virtues of thrift, are frugal, far-sighted and save money. I do not criticise them for that; people's temperaments vary. Anyone familiar with the labour market—and I reckon to have some familiarity with the London labour market—knows very well that it contains all sorts of people. Some of them are frugal, farsighted and abstain from consumption so that they can save, but some do not. We shall not alter them by preaching at them, exhorting and putting pressure on them. This is how people are and we must accept it.
If we want to promote mobility of labour, which is the primary purpose here, we have to recognise that it will not be promoted if, when they lose their jobs, people find themselves in immediate economic difficulties. They are not likely to be adventurous, footloose, or mobile if they have suffered an economic shock. They are likely to stop where they are and to take the unemployment benefit which is available. If, however, they can draw unemployment benefit earlier they will be more likely to be willing to seek other jobs in other parts of the country.
I cannot be too dogmatic about this, but I suppose that the Ministry and the right hon. Lady had their reasons for fixing on this period. Before we accept the Clause we should know exactly what those reasons are, and on what arguments this period was based, to see whether it will observe the realities of the contemporary labour market.

Captain W. Elliot: On Second Reading, the right hon. Lady said this:
It will be payable for up to six months of unemployment or sickness after the first 12 days. This waiting time is necessary to ensure that the supplement does not have to be calculated for the very large number of very short spells of incapacity, or unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 40.]
I recognise the force of that. If the time for payment were reduced from the thirteenth to the fourth day, there would

be a vast number of claimants—for instance, in the case of an influenza epidemic. Was the reason for fixing it at the thirteenth day only an administrative one? I recognise that, in addition to producing a vast number of claims, there would be a great increase in expense if the time for payment was reduced.
I have studied various schemes which might encourage mobility of labour, which, as we know, is one of the objects of the Bill. I remember discussing a scheme at the London School of Economics by which a large sum of money, almost up to full earnings, was to be paid immediately unemployment started, with a tapering off in future months to encourage the man to look for another job. Has such a scheme been considered in the Ministry?

Miss Herbison: We have had a very good debate on this Amendment. The loss of a job through either unemployment or sickness is a matter of great concern. In April, 1963, the N.E.D.C. recommended that there should be earnings-related unemployment benefit. From the time that discussions began between the then Minister, the T.U.C. and what is now the Confederation of British Industry, it was accepted that earnings-related sickness benefit was also a desirable object.
I have been asked what would be the administrative difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) asked what would be the cost if the Amendment were accepted. Both these considerations had to be taken into account when we examined the whole cost of the scheme. What would be just, what would be administratively possible, and what would be financially possible—all these considerations have been taken into account.
The Government have been asked whether statements about the number of sick men who might try to get unemployment benefit and vice versa have not been exaggerated. However, we have the experience of the pre-1948 period when those of my hon. Friends who lived in areas of high unemployment saw for themselves what happened when unemployment benefit was better than sickness benefit. The Ministry has been able to confirm the impressions which I gained over a long period from my hon. Friends.
The line between sickness and unemployment is not always clear. Under the Amendment, a man who got earnings-related supplement for the fourth day of unemployment and who, before the twelfth day became sick, would go over to a flat rate of sickness benefit and lose his supplement. That is one case which I do not think anyone would want to happen under the new scheme.
Workers receive notice—sometimes a week, sometimes a fortnight, sometimes a month—that their job is to end. Assume that a man under notice becomes sick a few days before the expiry of the notice. Instead of getting the earnings-related unemployment benefit after four days, he would get the flat-rate sickness benefit. These are matters of administration. They are also matters of justice as between someone who has lost his job through unemployment and someone who is out of work because he is sick. Although this question was given priority in the National Plan, we must very carefully weigh the social considerations.
If the Amendment were accepted, much would depend on the order in which the sickness or unemployment occurred. A man with 12 days' sickness followed by 12 days' unemployment would receive only a 12-day supplement because he was sick first. A man with 12 days' unemployment followed by 12 days' sickness would receive 21 days' earnings-related benefit. It seemed to the Government, from their examination, that these were injustices which should not be accepted.
It may be argued that these difficulties are surmountable, but if we tried to mitigate the worst of these difficulties we should complicate the scheme to a much greater extent and we should puzzle claimants. The sick and the unemployed do not fall into neat categories. People who are unemployed can fall sick. People under notice can fall sick. These are almost everyday occurrences. The examples I have given are not exceptional. This was why the Government had to face these facts.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) asked whether one benefit could be paid more quickly administratively. Unemployment benefit could be paid more quickly from an administrative

point of view But after examining all the points, we feel that this would not be the right thing to do.
7.30 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to schemes in other countries. I do not know how much he has examined those schemes, and I say this in the most kindly way. I have been interested in foreign schemes for a long time and I find that the more one examines them the more one concludes that one knows less and less about them. It is almost impossible to find valid comparisons between those schemes and our own.
Earnings-related supplements were originally thought of by many as a means of encouraging the mobility of labour, but I believe that what I have said has shown an overriding case for uniformity. There are, however, other important considerations which would justify the Committee in rejecting the Amendment, which, in any case, I understand has been tabled only for probing purposes.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton and others have referred to what I said on Second Reading. It is true that about 50 per cent. of short spells of incapacity, for whatever reason, last less than two weeks. I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) but on the basis of figures which have been given on previous occasions I do not think that we can tailor a scheme just to catch malingerers.
I said at the beginning that this was not over-ridingly a matter of administration. There was also the matter of expense and it did not seem to us justifiable to incur substantial expense for the early days of sickness and unemployment over and above the flat-rate benefit that is paid. I do not think that it is necessary to accept the Amendment or something like it to achieve the objective of mobility of labour, which I realise is important.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East rightly emphasised that what worries a man is not the prospect of a few days of unemployment but of several weeks or even months, with its related


financial anxiety. Since the earnings-related supplements will be paid after 12 days from the thirteenth day we are going a long way to eradicate this financial anxiety, especially for the family man who has continuing commitments whether he is sick or unemployed. Therefore, I think that the provisions of the Bill are a contribution towards the achievement of mobility of labour.
There are payments, which will be received immediately after a person is unemployed, which will help to supplement the flat-rate benefit. An hon. Member has mentioned the tax rebate, which can be considerable particularly for the man who receives very high earnings and who will benefit most from this earnings-related Measure. Many of these people will receive the tax rebate in that early period. There may also be payment in lieu of holiday entitlement. At the moment, holiday payments have to be taken into account when a man seeks unemployment benefit, but we will be submitting regulations to provide that in future a man will still be able to have his holiday payment and his unemployment benefit. Where unemployment has been due to redundancy, a man will be entitled to receive his lump-sum payment in that early period.
All these payments, of course, will not apply to every man. One or other will apply to a great many, but we must face the fact that there may be some who will not have any of these payments at all. Another, fourth item which a man may receive during this early period is one week's pay when he first becomes unemployed.
There are other administrative implications. I shall not deal with them now unless the Committee wants me to go into them in detail. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Opposition not to press the Amendment. I have been asked about the cost. If the Amendment were accepted it would cost an extra £6 million a year, according to a report from the Government Actuary in which he takes into account a level of 2 per cent. unemployment. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend has brought out some important points, but she has not overcome the point that I

made. I was not arguing that there should be any difference in payment of benefit for sickness and for unemployment. I agreed that the case for uniformity of payment was absolutely correct and that there could be no argument about it, but the point is that the workers who are mainly affected by short-term unemployment, possibly over a period of six months or so, are those who are employed in casual industries such as the construction industry. When we talk in terms of redundancy payments we should remember that it is these very workers who will not receive the type of redundancy payment that workers in a more stable industry would receive after long service. A man in another industry may work for perhaps 10 or 15 years and thus receive a reasonable and substantial sum in redundancy payment. However, a worker in a casual type industry will not get such a payment and will benefit most from the wage-related benefits.
Whilst I accept that there must be complete uniformity and that, possibly, payment on the fourth day, for example, is not feasible in view of the economic situation and the expense involved, I still think that the 12-day period is too long, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at it again. Could not she consider a period of seven days?
For the first week of unemployment, the worker will have a week's wages to cover him. Thereafter, for three full days no money will come in at all. Then, of course, he will get the normal basic benefit. But it is at the end of the first week of unemployment that he really begins to feel the pinch. If we are to get greater mobility and social justice as well—which is an essential principle here—the new benefit should come at that stage.
I urge my right hon. Friend to look at this again to see whether the date cannot be brought a little further forward. I accept all her arguments, which have been most convincing, but, nevertheless, some workers will be particularly affected by casual employment and it is these we should consider.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I must apologise to the Committee. I have been unable to listen to the whole debate because I had a meeting outside. But I heard what the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said. It was the most reasonable speech that she has so


far made in this Committee stage. Obviously, the Division has helped to bring her back to a rather better mood.

Miss Herbison: We won it.

Mr. Lewis: I hope that the right hon. Lady's new mood will last for the rest of the evening. She made out a reasonably good case for maintaining this provision and, as we have indicated, this is only probing Amendment. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that the 12-day period should be looked at again. It should certainly be borne in mind in the review of the social services, about which we have heard so much.
I did not like two points that the right hon. Lady made. I did not think it really fair when she said that a worker would have a week's pay "lying on". In fact, he would not have received that week's pay immediately he started his job, so surely it is not something that should be taken into account as against the benefit he is getting for unemployment.
Nor could I entirely accept the right hon. Lady's argument on Income Tax. This is the worker's money, not the Government's. It is not money that should be used as an argument against giving the worker wage-related unemployment or sickness benefit. It is money that has been taken from him by the Government in taxation and which is being returned to him with the drop in his income. I discount both these arguments, but the rest I accept. I hope that, in the longer term, the right hon. Lady will look at the question of whether the period should not be rather less than 12 days.

7.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is worried about the existence of the 12-day period before the supplement will be paid. When he spoke previously he asked what consultations we had had on this with the T.U.C. I can assure him that on this and other matters the T.U.C. was consulted.
It has been suggested that I should think about this again, but if it had been possible to bring in the payment earlier I assure the Committee that we would have done so. But for the reasons I have given, and some administrative reasons

with which I did not deal, it is impossible, in this interim scheme, if we are to get it "off the ground", to pay the supplement before the end of the 12 days. Of course, in discussing this with the T.U.C. we made it clear that this is an interim scheme and that this aspect will be fully examined in the formulation of the full scheme that is to come. I give that guarantee.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) must have picked up wrongly one or two points that I made or have taken them out of context. I was actually taking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) about the financial worry of unemployment. I was merely trying to state the facts and not to discuss where the money came from. What would a man have? First, he would have his unemployment benefit. On top of that, he might have an Income Tax rebate. He might have—indeed, would be likely to do so—a week's wage available during the first week of unemployment. That is all I said. I merely pointed out that these were sources of income that an unemployed worker might have, and I was also careful to point out that some might not have a certain source of income at all. I hope that, with this explanation, we shall be able to pass on.

Sir K. Joseph: We thank the right hon. Lady for her courteous and helpful speech. If we were convinced that the Amendment was thoroughly justified on the grounds either of social justice or of mobility of labour, we would have attacked her administrative difficulties. They sounded impressive in the telling, but added up to a number of rather minimal problems.

Miss Herbison: I really did not deal thoroughly with the administrative difficulties. I asked the Committee if it wished me to deal with them but I thought that the few points I had made were sufficient.

Sir K. Joseph: Behind the first rank of administrative difficulties, the right hon. Lady threatened us with many more. The point she made about a person suffering a metamorphosis during the first 12 days or becoming sick during the period of notice was rather minimal. Were we convinced that the change proposed in


our Amendment were right we would want to spend more time on these difficulties and take more interest in the other administrative problem.
However, the right hon. Lady made one or two points which have convinced us that this Amendment is not an urgent matter, either for social fairness or for mobility. When she says that half these spells of unemployment are for less than two weeks and lists the number of first-line reserves, as it were, that the unemployed man has for the first 12 days, she makes us realise that the greater cost which would have to be borne by individuals and by industry would not be justified. We are grateful to her for giving us fairly full information and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: There are many matters arising on the Clause on which I should like some guidance from the Minister. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) appears to be about to leave the Chamber, but before he does so I ought to tell him that one of the points I wish to make concerns his own comments about subsection (5, a) which he made on Second Reading. He will remember that he said that taking 1/50th of the reckonable year would be unfair to those people who had periods of unemployment and whose average weekly earnings were, therefore, relatively low. He proposed to his right hon. Friend that the best four months of the reckonable year should be the period to be taken into account.
I wonder whether the Government have considered that. I know that there has been much debate about the right yardstick, the right criterion, but there is a simplicity in the Bill's present proposals which has its advantages. But the whole of the Clause is weighted against the low paid man. I accept that there are many problems about helping the low-paid man without creating undesirable disincentives, but where there is an opportunity to help him, I would have thought that the Government would have seized it, and we would like to hear the Government's reaction to the hon. Gentleman's proposition. There may be all sorts of

other ways in which to deal with this, but if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about the Government's attitude to the low-paid man wherever he is mentioned in the Clause that would be helpful. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walton for staying. That is the only reference I have to make to his Second Reading speech.
In subsection (4,b) we come up against the wretched 85 per cent. rule which, as the Government recognise, hits the low paid man and is not much of a burden on the above-average wage earner. Subsection (8,b) provides for regulations to allow subsection (4,b) to be varied. The interesting thing is that the 85 per cent. rule can be varied
for the purposes of the application of this section to any particular case or class of case.
Do the Government have in mind that where there is an industry or a section of an industry with a particular preponderance of low earners, they should consider altering this additional earnings stop? If this is not their intention, what on earth is the point of subsection (8,b) and why is it so drawn as to give the Government power to vary, presumably the earnings stop, in its application to any particular case or class of case? Surely a particular case cannot mean any particular individual. What does it mean? Does it mean M workers, or M workers in Scotland, or M workers in Aberdeen? How particular is this case and what is a class of case? Does that mean all M workers earning less than so-and-so? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the outcome of subsection (4,b) and subsection (8,b) when taken together. I may have misunderstood to what subsection (8,b) applies.
I took those matters first because the hon. Member for Walton was then in the Chamber, but there are others to make. I presume that the Government are well aware and do not particularly regret that the result of subsection (4, a) is to redistribute against the man or woman earning more than £30 a week. The man or woman earning more than £30 a week is once again penalised by the Bill. The minds of Government Members may go to the entrepreneurial class which I believe to be the most important class for the prosperity of the country, but perhaps I can appeal to


hon. Members opposite by mentioning that this group also contains the technicians, the technologists and the managers on whom even they reckon that our prosperity depends.
We would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how the Government can possibly use the Clause or vary the Clause later to help the low paid earner. I have drawn attention to subsection (5, a). I hope that the Government will give us an undertaking to consider again before Report whether there is any simple variation of the l/50th rule which will help the lower-paid man, particularly the man whosé job is fairly precarious and whose work is constantly interrupted. The interruptions of his work automatically reduce the benefits which he gets from the Bill and we hope that the Minister will give us more information on this subject.
I must confess that there are other subsections which I do not understand. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what subsection (7) and subsection (8, a) mean? Will he say why it is necessary in subsection (8,b) to provide for a variation in the relevant Income Tax year? After all, the reckonable year is clearly defined elsewhere in the Bill as being the year running to the previous 5th April and yet suddenly we find in subsection (8, e) that there is power to change the reckonable year. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the requirement in subsection (8, g) will bear in mind the introduction of the mechanisation of accounting systems and the use of the electronic systems? I am sure that he will, for the Ministry itself is a pioneer in this respect.
I am sorry that those questions are numerous, but this is a long and important Clause. I conclude by saying that we would like to hear whether there is anything the hon. Gentleman can tell us not only about the low paid man, but the man who is more than once dependent on the Bill in a relatively short time. How often can a man be unemployed and claim under the Bill? Heaven knows that we do not want to predict a situation in which there is a rapid turnover of jobs, but I do not know whether in the Clause or elsewhere there is a definition of how long must be served before a man is entitled again. Perhaps

the hon. Gentleman will give us what help he can with those questions.

Mr. Pentland: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has raised a number of complicated and technical questions, and I will do my best to deal with them as briefly as possible. Obviously, if I had to develop many of them we would be here for a very long time.
Subsection (8,b) gives the Minister power by regulation to modify the operation of the benefits ceiling in any particular case or class of case. This power is not intended to enable the Minister to modify the ceiling in its application to all cases—the words quoted would preclude this—but rather to vary the benefit ceiling in individual types of case.
8.0 p.m.
It is intended to use this power in a most generous way. For example, where the rate of sickness benefit payments is reduced because of free in-patient treatment in hospital the ceiling will be applied only after hospital deductions have been made. It may also be needed in cases where there is a deficient contribution record.
We have said repeatedly that the problem of the low-paid workers gives us concern. There are other ways in which we would eventually hope to deal with this problem, and I am sure that the trade unions are just as conscious of the problem as anyone, including the employers. In subsection (4) the amount payable by way of supplement in any particular case is whichever is the lower of the amounts arrived at by applying the formulae set out. Thus, for a single man with average earnings of £12 a week the rate of supplement would be £1 under paragraph (a) but total benefit would be less than 85 per cent. of earnings for the purposes of paragraph (b).
On the other hand a married man with four children but with the same average earnings of £12 would receive £1 under paragraph (a), but 8s. under paragraph (b), the difference between his total flat rate weekly benefit of £9 16s. and the 85 per cent. maximum of £10 4s.

Sir K. Joseph: This is the example which we all used at Second Reading, and with which we are all sadly familiar.


Would the hon. Gentleman relate this to what he said before about subsection (8, b), when he said that his right hon. Friend would have power, under the regulations, to vary the application of this rule to an individual? I am not believing what I am going to say, I am pointing out the result of what he said. Does he mean that his right hon. Friend will have power to vary the application of the 85 percent. rule for one particular £12 a week wage earner with four children, because she takes pity on that particular case? Surely not. How does (8,b) operate in its application to an individual? How is it reconciled with the objective powers of a departmental Minister? I have not understood this at all.

Mr. Pentland: What I was referring to was that the Minister can by the regulations do this. Obviously, she would not take a particular case here and there and say that that was deserving of consideration over and above the ordinary low-paid worker. The right hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph (a) of subsection (5). This defines the average weekly earnings for the purposes of the supplement as one-fiftieth of the reckonable earnings within the income tax year. At the time when a person claims benefit, the earnings to be taken into account will normally be those he had in a period ranging from a minimum of one to 13 months up to a maximum of 13 to 25 months previously. On average, earnings can be expected to be about a year out of date. To divide them by 50 rather than 52 serves to increase the rate of supplement by 4 per cent. This takes into account probable rises in earnings between the reference period and the date of the claim.
Subsection 8(g) requires employers to retain records of reckonable earnings for such periods as may be prescribed. These records will be needed if a claimant is unable to produce a certificate of pay and tax deducted for a particular tax year or if it is felt necessary to verify the authenticity of a certificate. It will also be necessary to refer to employers where the normal procedure for transferring pay records on a change of employment has broken down.
For these purposes it is intended to require employers to keep records of earnings for all persons employed by them during a particular tax year, whether

or not they are still working for the employer at the end of the year. So long as the definition of reckonable earnings corresponds closely with the earnings required by the Inland Revenue to be entered on an employee's certificate of pay and tax deducted, the additional burden here for the employers should not be too great. The final lines of this subsection put it beyond doubt that records required to be kept by employers must be produced to a duly authorised inspector of the Ministry if required, by bringing such records within the documents already covered under section 90(3) of the National Insurance Act.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a matter in subsection (7). The first part of this subsection makes it clear that supplement may be paid on top of injury benefit. This was included for presentation reasons. The same result could be secured by amending the overlapping benefit regulations under existing powers. These powers will be used to enable the supplement to be paid with an unemployability supplement under either the industrial injuries or war pension schemes. The number of cases where supplement will be payable with unemployability supplements will be so small that it is not thought necessary to make a separate declaratory provision in the Bill. It is not intended however that these powers will be used to enable the supplement to be paid on top of the maternity allowance. I hope that I have touched upon most of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Edward Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman say what would be the position of the person who has been declared redundant and received redundancy pay? Would that person qualify for the supplement during the period which he is unemployed, having received redundancy pay?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, of course.

Mr. Gower: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what supplement he was referring in connection with the maternity benefit?

Mr. Pentland: This is the normal maternity benefit. I strayed to a different part when dealing with the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gower: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not understood me. He referred first to the payment of certain unemployability supplements in relation to persons in receipt of certain war pensions and industrial injury benefit and then he made a reference to maternity benefits. What supplement was he referring to when he spoke of maternity benefit?

Mr. Pentland: I was referring to the supplement that is to be paid over and above the maternity allowance.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When I look at the Clause, I understand why the Government will not amend it, because I am not sure that they understand exactly what it means. They are probably scared stiff to amend it for fear of upsetting it completely.
In looking at the Clause, I am in difficulty. It seems, at least, to affect the lower-paid worker. There are two sections of people who do not come out of this very well. One is the low-paid man and the other is the highly-paid man. The block in the middle seem to be all right, but as they are in the majority I suppose that that is all right.
I deal, first, with the lower-paid man. The Clause will get the Government and the country into great difficulty. In any event, it is difficult enough to get people to take up low-paid jobs. If they are to be asked to go into low-paid jobs knowing that they will not get as much when they are working as people in other jobs and if, in addition, they are also to be told that should they become unemployed they will not get as much as other unemployed workers, this will be a double disincentive against men taking up low-paid jobs.
I understand why the Government have done this. They do not want people to be better off when unemployed than when they are employed. That is understandable. The Bill should, however, look after the low-paid worker when he is out of work for a longer period. At least there should be something in the Bill to ensure that he is not disadvantaged in perpetuity.
I turn now to the higher-paid worker, the main earning above £30 a week. It is sometimes possible that people will find themselves for a year or two in a very highly paid job. They may then

find that they have to take another job which is not as highly paid. Then, they could be caught by the Bill—at least, that is how it appears to me; I should like guidance on this—because they have not been subject to unemployment pay for a certain period of time. They suddenly come into a job in which they become eligible for unemployment pay, but they have not paid the necessary contributions.
How does the Bill affect those people? It is wrong for any of us to assume that people who get large incomes will get those large incomes during the whole of their working life. These two categories of people, the very low paid and those who are highly paid, are not much assisted by the Bill.
Another matter which has puzzled me a great deal is subsection (8, b), which states that the Minister may
vary the provisions of subsection (4)(b)…for the purposes of the application of this section to any particular case or class of case".
Will the Minister come to the House to ask our permission, or will the Ministry, through its civil servants, be able to deal with a case in complete isolation?
8.15 p.m.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke a few minutes ago, he let slip the kind of case which he thought might be brought under the subsection. He said that should a person be in hospital these provisions would be brought to bear so that the amount due to the patient would be increased taking into account what he had to pay in hospital. Does this apply to somebody who is a private patient? I should not have thought so. In any event, what fees do people have to pay when they go into hospital? Are we being asked in the Bill to provide a plus payment for people who go into hospital? In hospital, they get free board. Not only do they get treatment but they are looked after during the whole of their stay. Perhaps the Minister will explain this.
What other cases has the hon. Gentleman in mind? What other variations will there be? Is there any precedent for this? I cannot think of any regulations covering payment by the State in which a Minister has taken unto himself power to vary the payment or to tell his civil servants that they can have a cockshy at


it. If that were to be the situation, it might be all very well for those who get the increased benefits, but what about George around the corner who thinks that John has had a little bit more than he has and that he should not have had it? People are only human in these matters. There is great danger in the Minister taking for herself powers to vary payments in this way. I should like further clarification, because the position is not at all clear.

Mr. Gower: Before we part with the Clause I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the draftsmen who have assembled, I would not say into a completely intelligible form but into something which is semi-intelligible, a mass of such difficult material.
I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I may be wrong about this. If I am, I apologise to the Minister and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in advance. I imagine, however, that this is the first case in a Bill of this kind where power to vary payments has been taken on such a scale by a Minister. This is a double-edged weapon and I warn the right hon. Lady about it now. I hope that if the Minister is taking this power to vary, she is also assuming the responsibility of answering Questions in the House. That is some undertaking, because the right hon. Lady will be faced by Questions from both sides asking why, in certain cases, she has varied the payments. No doubt she will tell us something about this.
In the past, analogous powers to vary have been held by, for example, the National Assistance Board, but those powers have not been questionable in the House. It has not been open to an hon. Member to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mr. A. or Mr. B has received a certain amount of National Assistance whereas Mr. C, whose circumstances appeared to be similar, has received more.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct. In the help that it gives, the National Assistance Board has to apply certain regulations. It can vary payments only in giving additional assistance for coal and things of that kind.

Mr. Gower: It is wrong to suggest that the payments are based upon any inexorable, inflexible scale. They are discretionary powers within the true meaning of "discretionary". I agree that the National Assistance Board undoubtedly has a standpoint which it applies. However, they are not open to question in the House. The right hon. Lady will, I imagine, be open to question in the House.
I should like her to confirm whether, in this kind of legislation, social and National Insurance legislation, this is the first occasion on which such powers have been taken to vary benefits. Secondly, I should like her to confirm that in assuming such powers the Minister will be prepared to answer for the exercise of these powers to vary.

Mr. Pentland: The main issue with which I was concerned, and with which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman is as still concerned as he was previously, was the question raised on subsection 8(b). I read again what I said: this enables the benefit ceiling formula to be varied; the powers will be available for cases where the amount of flat rate benefit in payment is less than the standard rate—for example, where there has been a contribution deficiency or the claimant is subject to hospital in-patient reduction.
"Case" does not mean an individual case, but rather a situation or case which can apply to a group of people; not only one particular person; this can apply to a group of people. For example, there is the case of hospital reductions, which has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower); this could apply to a group of people. There is no question of the Minister being able to vary the ceiling for a particular individual. I want to make that clear.
The powers given here will be exercised by regulations. The point is that where the flat rate is a reduced one—for example, where, as a result of the hospital considerations which I have just referred to, or there was less than 50 contributions—it is possible to allow the supplement. This is by virtue of regulations which will be brought forward, to allow the supplement to go higher without providing an excessive total benefit.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am still a little concerned about this. First of all the hon. Gentleman gives an example. By virtue of the fact that he gives an example there is the implication that there are other possibilities; but he does not state those possibilities. When rereading his original speech just now the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an example of the kind of thing which could happen. One must presume from that that it is only an example and that there are other possibilities.
The Clause does not mention hospitalisation. It is a blanket which could cover other things. That is the second point.
The third question I would ask the hon. Gentleman is, can he give me any guidance whether this has already happened with National Assistance in hospital cases? I have an idea at the back of my mind that I have had letters written to me from time to time saying that people who have gone into hospital have not had additions because of what were minor hospital charges.

Sir K. Joseph: I think we are getting somewhere on subsection (8,b). It seems—the right hon. Lady will, no doubt, enlighten us—a very sensible proposal, but it is drafted in language so wide that it could be used for any purpose. Would the right hon. Lady tell us whether it is much wider in scope than the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has so far indicated, and, even if not, would she be willing between now and Report to look at this to see if the drafting can be narrowed a little? The example which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given seems to us to be very sensible. It seems that it will enable the right hon. Lady to help the low-paid wage earner. That I would applaud, but, as drafted, the paragraph will enable her to do practically anything, and I should like her to look again seriously at the drafting.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady would fill in a few other gaps. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the point on subsection (5, a) made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), namely, the case of people out of work quite a bit, and that a shorter period than one year should be taken—perhaps 16 weeks divided by 16 or some such procedure. That was put forward

by the hon. Member in his Second Reading speech. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to my question about subsection (8, e), why the Minister should have power to vary the relevant tax year.
There are two other points I did not raise before on which I should like guidance. I have not found in the Bill—no doubt, it is my fault—whether the procedure to bring in regulations will be the positive or the negative. That is, perhaps, my fault for not being successful in my hunt. The second new question is, could the right hon. Lady tell us what happens to people who are ill on the appointed day? If people are ill on the appointed day and have already been ill for 12 days, will they at once qualify for graduated benefit or will they have to accumulate 12 waiting days? Perhaps it is a question of which the right hon. Lady would like notice.
However, the principal points on which we should like guidance are subsection (5, a) and subsection (8, e), the type of procedure for regulations and our old friend subsection (8, b) and whether the right hon. Lady will reconsider the very wide drafting, although we thoroughly approve the purposes individually instanced to us by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

8.30 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I will try to answer the points which have been raised, although my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has dealt very well with a great number of them. I will deal, first, with the regulations. These will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, but, of course, they will go to the Advisory Committee beforehand. I think that the right hon. Member will realise what that means.
Next, I take subsection (8,b). The right hon. Gentleman says that the powers here are very wide indeed, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) seemed to get into a morass of hypothetical questions and hypothetical cases. I shall try to clear up some of these difficulties. It would give us power to help the low-wage earner, about whom, I think, all of us are worried. Yet we all realise that we have to have the 85 per cent. ceiling. But where one can help the low-wage earner,


one wants to do it, and we have been giving a great deal of thought to that category in another connection.
The way to help the low-wage earner, whether he is in work or out of work—and even if he is in work his family can suffer very grave disabilities—would be by some other form of family endowment by which the 85 per cent. ceiling would scarcely touch any worker in the country. So, where we can help, we want to.
If we take the low-wage earner who, for one reason or another, has a deficiency in his contributions, whether it be pension, sickness benefit or unemployment benefit, regulations made under subsection (8,b) could help us deal with his situation. We also have regulations at present dealing with the other side of it, when a man or woman is in hospital after a certain time and there is a reduction in the benefit paid. We have those regulations already.
The right hon. Gentleman is afraid that it is very wide. The safeguard lies, first, in the fact that the regulations can be debated in the House and the National Insurance Advisory Committee will be examining them.
I think that I have said sufficient on subsection (8,b) to show that we are not concerned about any individual case but with groups of people.

Mr. Gower: In subsection (8,b) it says that regulations may vary the provisions of subsection (4,b) for the purposes of of the application of the Section to any particular case or class of case. Does that not imply that there may be a case?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman means an individual case of a person in hospital. Each case will be an individual case of a contribution deficiency or a time in hospital, but the regulations will be general regulations dealing with cases.
I turn now to the point about the relevant tax year. As I have said on other Amendments, this is an interim scheme. We intend to take the previous tax year. The man will have his P. 60, and we hope that that will cut out a great deal of work. It is the previous tax year, and it may be that, when the full scheme is worked out and we have some knowledge of the way in which it is working, we will want to alter it.
Under the scheme no account will be taken in the man's income for the year of sickness and unemployment benefit. The T.U.C. was a bit worried about that. When we come to our full-blown scheme we hope that not only will we give consideration to what might be done to vary the tax year, but to the period on which we should estimate what the earnings-related supplement should be.

Sir K. Joseph: What about subsection (8e)?

Miss Herbison: Subsection (8, e) deals with the relevant Income Tax year. I thought that I had already dealt with that, unless there is some other point.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady has dealt with it adequately on subsection (5, a) where the point was the one raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that it might help the low-paid worker if something shorter than a year was the comparison. Under subsection (8, e) we find that she is to make regulations giving her power to alter the Income Tax year, and that is quite a different point. The previous point was the length of the comparative period. Now we are discussing which Income Tax year should be taken. Can the right hon. Lady answer that?

Miss Herbison: Where the Bill says in subsection (8, e) that
Regulations may—
(e) provide that the relevant income tax year for the purposes of earnings-related supplement shall be such other income tax year than that specified in subsection (5)(c) of this section as may be prescribed by the regulations
it will be a matter that we may prescribe by regulations. These regulations will be brought to the House, and, in the nature of things, they will go to the Advisory Committee.
This point has come in at a rather late stage, and I am sorry that I am not able to give the detailed information which I gave on the other one. I shall look at it, and perhaps I can get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, or give him the information on Third Reading.

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will deal with it on Third Reading.

Miss Herbison: Certainly.

Mr. Maddan: The right hon. Lady explained the purpose of these variations, but the point to be considered is the cost which may arise to the National Insurance Fund. When we were discussing the Money Resolution on Monday of last week, the right hon. Lady said:
Not a penny for the purposes of the Bill will come out of the Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 146.]
How does the right hon. Lady visualise being able to vary these to help people? What sum of money does she visualise may be involved? Are they to be financed out of the reserves of the Fund, or from increased contributions? May the variations lead to increased contributions? I think that before we leave this Clause the right hon. Lady ought to tell us something about that.

Miss Herbison: The Money Resolution covered the administrative side, and had nothing to do with the benefits provided by it. All the benefits, even those which will be included in any regulations which are made under subsection (8, b). will come out of the ½ per cent. a side.

Sir E. Brown: I should like to refer to the P. 60 to which the right hon. Lady made some reference during the Second Reading debate. If the Bill is intended—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele): Order. We are not on Second Reading.

Sir E. Brown: If this Clause, which is part of the Bill, is to come into operation in the autumn, I presume that the P. 60 which will operate to cover the earnings for the period will be the one ending in April of the current year.

Miss Herbison: I made that clear on Second Reading to ensure that workers would hold on to the P. 60s which they received from their employers after April of this year.

Sir E. Brown: This is a very important point which ought to be reiterated to make sure that it is understood.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND SICKNESS BENEFIT.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 22, to leave out "three hundred and twelve" and to insert "four hundred and ninety-two".
This is a probing Amendment, on a very technical point. Until the Bill comes into force, an unemployed person is entitled to 180 days' benefit, with a further potential 312 days' benefit, subject to the state of his contributions. This may be a sensible thing to do. The Bill substitutes 312 days for 180 days, but of course at the moment an unemployed person has, potentially, the aggregate of 180 days' and 312 days' benefit, which is 492 days, subject to his contributions being in good order. It would appear at first sight that the result of the Bill will be that some unemployed people will have their potential period for benefits, which is theirs as of right, reduced from 492 to 312 days. I do not expect, when the right hon. Lady has finished explaining to us, that there will be this difference, but on the face of it it looks as if the Bill will disadvantage some unemployed people who are in good contribution status.
That is why the Amendment proposes to replace the 380 days with the aggregate of the previous periods, namely, 492 days. We should like to hear from the Minister whether we are right in our asumption that the Bill might disadvantage some unemployed people. If this is so, we shall want to consider the Amendment very seriously. If we have misunderstood the position, the Amendment will have served its purpose in showing us where we were wrong.

Mr. Dean: I followed the arguments of the right hon. Lady on Second Reading, and I can see that there is a strong argument for saying that the maximum period for which benefit can be payable should be the same. In many cases the actual contribution record of the person concerned depends on the luck of the draw, on whether he happens to be in stable employment or not. I follow the argument for having a standard period applying throughout, but it appears, as my right hon. Friend has said, that instead of selecting—as one might have hoped the right hon. Lady would do—the top level,


the maximum period for which anybody can be entitled to benefit at the moment, she appears to have selected the bottom level.
Surely, one of the matters of which we are constantly reminded in considering this Bill is that, in dealing with short-term benefits, we are at the same time focusing attention on the difference between the short-term and the long-term. This is an argument for saying that when, as now, it is desirable to have a uniform level, we should take the longest period which is available at the moment rather than the shortest.

Miss Herbison: I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, (Sir K. Joseph) has explained the Amendment clearly. He wants to ensure that instead of there being benefit for 12 months, as the Bill would provide, there should be benefit for the longest period that anyone can receive benefit at the moment—which goes up to 19 months. I think that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) misunderstands when he says that we have chosen the shortest period. We have not. The period can at present be from seven months to 19 months, dependent on the contribution record of the person who becomes unemployed—seven months with a poor record and 19 with a good one.
I believe that the hon. Member for Somerset, North, was concerned about the fact that the Bill does not set out to deal with the long term sick, just as it does not set out to deal with the long-term unemployed. This is a Bill to provide earnings related unemployment and sickness benefit as quickly as possible. That is the first thing which we have to take into account. We could divide into two categories the people who are unemployed for more than one year. The first comprises those people who may have some special reason for being unemployed—not all of them, although in these days of full employment it is almost certain that there is some special reason why someone is unemployed for over a year. These people may be unemployed because of some disability or some health or social factor. That is one set of people who could be unemployed for more than a year.
The other set are people who are unemployed and who may have private means of their own. We have had Questions

put about the person who retires with a very good occupational pension. Alternatively, these people may have some other private means. Frankly they are not interested in further employment. If that is the case we cannot say that this second class of person will suffer as a result of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
The first class consists usually of people who have been in industry and have had, perhaps, a record of unemployment. These are usually the people who are getting about seven months' unemployment benefit at present. Under the Bill, instead of seven months they will get 12 months. Everybody will get 12 months—six months with earnings-related supplement and six months flat-rate benefit. The second class of person I mentioned will get 12 months benefit instead of 19 months.
Because of my concern and the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, only this week we asked the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look into the whole question of occupational pensioners. It does not follow that every occupational pensioner has a big pension, but quite a number have. It therefore seemed to me that for this second class of person there was no sound reason for extending the period of unemployment benefit beyond 12 months. They will not lose from the Bill. This second class, in the main the high wage earners, will benefit under the Bill by six months earnings-related supplement on top of the flat-rate benefit, and then the six months flat-rate benefit. If we add these together it comes very near to the 19 months benefit they are getting at present. It seemed to us that perhaps this was a fair way of doing it—giving five months extra benefit to those who for no reasons of their own had a poor contribution record and giving 12 months benefit to the others.
If I accepted the Amendment the cost would be £15 million a year, and most of the extra expenditure would go to people with private means—people who throughout most of their lives have had a very good employment record and about whom it might be said that their interest in finding another job is open to question. That view is not a view which I alone express; it has been voiced by hon. Members opposite. It seemed to be wrong to increase the cost by £15 million on


those grounds. The problems of the long-term sick and the long-term unemployed are very human problems, but this Bill is not the vehicle which we should use to deal with them.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for that explanation. Would she give one additional piece of information; how many people are likely to have their period of benefit reduced?

Miss Herbison: Perhaps I should have added that there are transitional arrangements involved here. If, when the provisions come into operation, someone has a right to the 19 months and had been unemployed for only a few months, that person would continue to get benefit right up to the limit of the 19 months. For the others, who became unemployed after the operation of the Measure, the provisions will apply to them. It would be difficult to place an exact figure on the numbers adversely affected, but the cost is a fairly high one—according to the Actuary, it would be £15 million.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but since the Minister stated that the cost would be £15 million, would she, first, say whether that sum represents a disadvantage to certain people? In other words, will there be a £15 million loss for a certain group of people, or is it simply that the cost would bring into benefit people who are not now, for legitimate reasons, getting the full 19 months?
Secondly, I hope that the right hon. Lady, in putting forward what seems a reasonable case, will not prejudge the issue which she has sent to the Advisory Committee.
Thirdly, I had assumed that all people seeking unemployment benefit had to show that they were genuinely available for work before they were successful. However, there may be deep waters here which I do not understand, and I realise that the right hon. Lady has referred this matter to the Advisory Committee. We do not wish to press the Amendment, and I will gladly withdraw it if she will say whether the £15 million represents a disadvantage to existing beneficiaries or is merely the cost of applying the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: It is the cost, although it is difficult to separate the two. If the

Amendment were accepted—which would mean giving 19 months instead of 12 months benefit, and the latter part of it would be a flat rate benefit—the cost would be £15 million. Those extra months would cover the people who at present are getting only seven months benefit, who under the Bill will get 12 months and who under the Amendment would get 19 months.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) asked if those who were unemployed had to show that they were genuinely seeking work. I would not like to say anything on this issue. It is for this and many other reasons that I decided to make the reference to the Advisory Committee. It must be remembered that many of these people who retire with good occupational pensions go to areas—and I do not in the least blame them for doing this—where it is difficult to find work. It would, therefore, be wrong to dub people as not genuinely seeking work. Indeed, I would not like to go back to that. I hope that the Advisory Committee will give us its report on this matter, and I do not want to prejudge it.

Sir K. Joseph: In the light of the right hon. Lady's further explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: I wish to raise one big point and one smaller one. The smaller point is that I would be grateful for a layman's explanation of the words in lines 12 to 15, in page 6. I am sure that there is a lucid, clear reason, but it escapes me.
The big point, of course, concerns the words at the bottom of page 5. I gather that what is being proposed in subsection (1) is that the right of unemployment pay shall be withdrawn for the second three days of any six days of suspension. I quite understand that the Minister expects both sides of industry to negotiate about the effects and repercussions of this bombshell—and it is a bombshell to industry. I think that on both sides of industry collective agreements have been based on unemployment pay being available for this period.
I can well imagine that arguments can be put forward to show some reason why this proposal makes sense, but the Minister must understand that it will cause a large reaction in industry when costs and risks which employers have legitimately thought were covered by their insurance contributions should suddenly—and, so far as I know, without notice, but the Minister will tell us whether this follows notice—be thrown back at the employers to bear themselves.
Where the ultimate cost of this—I am not quite sure whether it is three days or six days that was covered—which is now covered by unemployment insurance, but will not be covered by unemployment insurance from three years after the appointed date—will ultimately fall as between employers and employees is for their own negotiations to determine, but the right hon. Lady must realise that she is having some effect on industrial costs as a whole by this proposal, and has shattered to some extent expectations based on the insurance contributions which employers have made, and are making, and which they were perfectly entitled to assume would cover them from the first six days of any suspended period.
We look forward to a full explanation from the Minister of this part of the Clause, and a technical explanation, please, in lay language, of the first point to which I referred.

Miss Herbison: I will deal with the second point first. We made clear on Second reading why we had decided that earnings-related supplement should not be paid for periods of suspension lasting less than six days. We also tried to make clear why the flat-rate benefit should continue for three years, and thereafter should also stop. We have no doubt that the employer who, for one reason or another, wishes to retain a worker—and it is sometimes important for industry that a worker should be retained—should bear the cost of that retention. The cost will be borne by the employer, and not by the worker. We felt that unemployment benefit ought not to be used for this purpose.
Again, I made it clear that we would look at this question after 18 months, with the hope that within that time it would be clear that employers and employees

were getting together and were ready to come to agreements. Some of the very best employers already have these agreements, and we hope that all employers will be ready to make these agreements with their workers. We realise, of course, that this will be an additional expense to the employer but, again, in other industrial countries, as far as I can gather, with the proviso I made before, employers pay more for social security and social provisions than sometimes is the case in this country. We were therefore very much aware that this will mean additional finance that will have to come from the employer.
9.0 p.m.
I turn to Clause 3 (l,b,ii), which says:
a person's employment in an employed contributor's employment may be treated as having been, or as the case may be as not having been, suspended".
I can understand the right hon. Gentleman finding difficulty about this. I read it slowly to see if the sense of the matter would get home. I thought it had got home, but perhaps the right hon. Member will tell me. If we go back we find that there are amendments to the Unemployment Benefit and Sickness Benefit Regulations. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the general provisions of this Bill are met. The right hon. Member asked for the explanation to be given in lay language. This is one of the provisions which will ensure that the general provisions which have been explained very carefully will be carried out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(EARNINGS - RELATED AND OTHER WIDOW'S BENEFIT UNDER INSURANCE ACT.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Tiley: It is not my purpose to start a long discussion on this Clause because the Committee will have the privilege, with two new Clauses later, of debating the whole question of widows and we are not here to waste time. There are a few questions I wish to ask. Some are quite simple and others are about certain wording because this is a most unusual Clause. Three-quarters of it is absolutely


simple to understand and follow. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to supply the meanings of certain parts because they are in such language that I defy anyone to understand them.
On Clause 2 my right hon. Friend asked whether or not on the appointed day if someone were away ill the period of waiting was backdated to the moment of the commencement of the illness. We shall know the answer to that in due course. It is immaterial to the point I wish to make. We realise that no one could answer all these points without previous knowledge of them. What I want to make sure about is that if a person is ill on the appointed day and away from work and dies during the course of his illness, his widow is entitled to the wage-related benefit for the first 26 weeks of widowhood.
That is a simple point, but to follow that, what is the position of a widow whose husband has been receiving wage-related benefit because of incapacity for four of five months and then dies? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that we are dealing with two distinct benefits. One is for 26 weeks for an individual who may be sick, unemployed or away because of an accident. That is entirely separate. If he dies during the last few weeks of the 26 weeks, when the widow begins to receive benefit she gets not merely the conclusion of the 26 weeks but an entirely new 26 weeks period of benefit?
That also is a simple question. I then come to subsection (2, b), which prescribes the year for obtaining relevant income. Who will prescribe the year and what will be the information to be borne in mind to deal with the year? It is not quite clear from subsection (2, a), which says:
'the appropriate income tax year' means the last complete income tax year before the beginning of the earnings-related benefit year in which the widow's husband died;
It is not clear. Someone may have been off for 18 months. It is possible to visualise a claim for the widow's earnings, related benefit in relation to someone who has been off for four or five years due to a serious illness. What prescribed year will be taken then, because the last earnings year before a prolonged illness will be one long before increases in pay have taken place?
There was a provision in the old Workmen's Compensation Act by which in cases of difficulty the fair year could be used by an injured man. It is important to get a year which is fair to the injured man, because when he is off sick it is a time of suffering in the family. In that Act there was a provision which allowed the claim to be settled on the basis of a fair year for someone in comparable employment. It was an up-to-date comparison. The claimant might have been off work through injury for two or three years. Consequently his previous earnings would have been out of date.
In subsection (2, c) there is the most perfect bit of drafting I have ever seen:
 without prejudice to the application of subsections (8)(d) and (9) of the said section 2, subsection (5) of that section, except paragraph (c) thereof, shall apply as it applies for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section.
That must mean something to somebody. We have a right to know what we are passing. If we had been short of time, I should not have raised this point.
Subsection (4) contains another long sentence beginning with the words
For the removal of doubt.
Again, this sentence must mean something to somebody. Although I have perused it several times, it is meaningless jargon to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has just left the Chamber for the first time since about 3 o'clock, used the nicest expression I have ever heard—"the lay meaning". That is what we should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Subsection (2,d) provides that
regulations may provide that…at any time during the earnings-related benefit year in which "—
the husband—
died, the appropriate income tax year shall be such other income tax year as may be prescribed, being a year which was a relevant tax year for the purposes of that entitlement".
I have no doubt that there is a valid reason for this provision. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what it means.
When I first read that provision I was optimistic for those who will be affected by the Bill. I thought that they might


be able to select an Income Tax year when the Conservatives were in office, because Income Tax was not so high as it is now, or that they might be able to have a cock-shy ahead and select an Income Tax year when we will again be in office and when Income Tax will be less than it is under this Government.

Mr. Dean: May I put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary an additional question which probably he will be more eager to answer than the questions which he has already been asked? The Clause provides for two things. The first is the extension of the period of benefit from 13 weeks to 26 weeks and the second is the introduction of the earnings-related supplement to the pension. In her opening speech the Minister said that she expected that the extended period from 13 to 26 weeks would mean that about 85,000 widows would benefit anyway, but as for the earnings-related supplement she expected that about 70,000 would benefit. In other words, there is a difference of about 15,000 widows who, I assume, are not likely to be eligible for the earnings-related benefit. I should like to know the reason why.
I assume that the late husbands were earning £9 a week or less and therefore did not come into the graduated benefit or, equally, that the widows are excluded by the earnings stop. I should like a little more information concerning into which categories, on average, the 15,000 fall.

Mr. Pentland: The short answer to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is that the 85 per cent. earnings ceiling does not apply to widows. Among the 15,000 are widows whose husbands had been sick and disabled for a long period and there had been no earnings on which the widows could qualify for a supplement.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) was concerned about subsection (2, b). This enables the regulations to be varied so that where the husband has been receiving earnings-related supplements to unemployment or sickness benefit just before his death, the widow's supplementary allowance will be based on the same average earnings as were used to calculate the husband's benefit. Subsection (3) extends the period of the present flat-rate widow's allowance from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. It applies to all cases where the

husband had died less than 13 weeks before the appointed day. This would mean that the extension will apply in all cases where the widow's allowance of the old duration is actually in payment on the appointed day; the current widow's allowance is £5 12s. 6d.
9.15 p.m.
Concern was expressed about paragraph (c). Here again I am in complete agreement about its wording. The answer is that it ensures that the definitions in Clause 2 of average weekly earnings and of earnings-related benefit shall apply also to the widow's supplementary allowances. After all that wording, that is the short answer.
The other point was about paragraph (a), which provides for the year that is to be taken into account. Paragraph (b) enables regulations to be made varying this so that, where the husband has been receiving earnings-related supplement to unemployment or sickness benefit, the widow's supplementary allowance will be based on the same average earnings as were used to calculated the husband's benefit.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) raised doubts about paragraph (a). In general, the basis used will be the average earnings over the last complete year before the benefit year in which death occurred—that is, the last Income Tax year except in the case where death occurs between 6th April and the first Monday in May, when the penultimate tax year will be used. I hope that is clear to the hon. Gentleman. I must admit that it is not at all clear to me. For greater clarification I nearly went over it again, but I shall not because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow.
On subsection (4), the hon. Member for Bradford, West and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford were concerned about the details involved. This subsection is a minor provision designed to remove any doubt about the effect of the provision in the National Insurance Act about qualification for the receipt of widow's pension following the widowed mother's allowance. Section 28(3) of the Act provides that a widow ceasing to be entitled to a widowed mother's allowance when she


is over 50 is qualified to received the widow's pension thereafter.
This provision deals with the case where the widow ceases to fulfil the conditions for the widowed mother's allowance—for example, when the youngest child reaches the age of 19—while she is still drawing the widow's allowance. The doubt which arises concerns whether such a widow can be treated as having been entitled to the widowed mothers allowance for the purpose of the provision in Section 28(3). and this is to remove any such doubt, either in relation to the existing provision or to the corresponding provision in the 1946 Act, which was repealed on consolidation and replaced by Section 28(3) of the National Insurance Act. I apologise for the complexity of the replies, but I hope they contain indications of the powers in these provisions.

Mr. Tiley: It is almost as difficult listening to the explanation as it is making it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to clear up the other two points I made. The first concerns the case where the husband was away ill on the appointed day—in other words, where the claim is being paid on the old rate. Will the widow become entitled to related benefits?

Mr. Pentland: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify that? We still cannot grasp what he is driving at. He referred to a husband who was away ill and then asked what the position would be when the husband died?

Mr. Tiley: I am trying to make certain that everybody is in benefit on the appointed day and that when there is an illness on the appointed day, a claim is not treated under the old Act so that the widow receives nothing. What I am trying to establish is that every person in insurable employment will be in benefit on the appointed day so that there will be no hardship cases arising because of the ruling that the person concerned was away ill or unemployed or as a result of an accident on the appointed day and, not having paid any contributions at the new level, could not benefit. Our sympathies are with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in their efforts to answer these questions. This has been an enormous day of technical questions and now the broody Chancellor of the Duchy

comes in to cast his benign influence over the Committee and I dare say that he finds it a relief from his studies.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): Curiously enough, I know the answers to most of these questions.

Mr. Tiley: The right hon. Gentleman has time to do his homework.
Secondly, I was trying to establish that there were two separate benefits of 26 weeks each and that when a husband had been ill or unemployed for 20 weeks and then died, his widow would get a separate benefit of 26 weeks, in other words, that there would be two separate claims for two separate periods of 26 weeks.

Mr. Pentland: This gets more complicated as it goes on, but we can return to it later when the answers to these questions will be supplied.

Miss Herbison: It is difficult to get to know what the hon. Gentleman wants to know. If a person has been off sick for one, two or three years and then dies, there is no earnings-related supplement for the widow, because there will have been no earnings on which to base earnings-related supplement. An earnings-related supplement is based on the previous tax year and if a man has been off ill for a considerable time, there can be no earnings-related supplement in respect of his earnings. I hope that that clears up the difficulty.

Mr. Tiley: I am disappointed that the Bill should mean that, because once again we shall be creating a further anomaly when two widows living alongside each other and in similar circumstances will be in receipt of different benefits. There will not be many such cases, but it is a pity not to bring in everybody who is insurably employed on the appointed day. This week I had a letter from a widow who said that her husband had paid contributions for about 26 years and that she now gets no benefit. That is the sort of anomaly which we have created.
I hope that it is possible to reconsider the present proposals before Report, for I am sure that both sides of the Committee would want to cut out any injustice. So long as there is a year's work close to the date of death, a complete year, or


a prescribed year, or an Income Tax year, the claim would be regulated not by the length of the illness but by the fact that the person had worked within, say, the last two years. Whereas anyone who is unfortunate and is just outside that limit would find himself with the wage-related pension.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member says that this is going to create more anomalies. This is a Bill dealing with earnings relation to ensure that there is not going to be a sudden drop in the income of any household. If one takes the man who has been away ill for a considerable time, he will be getting the flat-rate benefit for himself and his wife. There will have been no earnings contribution paid and no Income Tax year on which to base benefit. His widow will get the benefits of the increase in the period of widow's allowance to 26 weeks instead of the present 13 weeks. I hope that helps to soften the blow for the hon. Member.

Mr. Dean: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirmed in answer to my earlier question that there is no earnings stop so far as earnings-related benefit for widows is concerned. Would I be right in assuming that his calculation of 15,000 widows who will not be given the earnings-related benefit means that there are 15,000 widows whose husbands were earning less than £9 per week in the previous Income Tax year?

Miss Herbison: No it does not mean that. There are other classes of people who are not entitled to the earnings-related supplement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO BENEFIT UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I must apologise for not being present when Clauses 1, 2 and 3 were being discussed. My primary interest is in Clause 5(4). Clause 5 appears to be very reasonable. The general objective seems to be to get the conditions for sickness benefit into line with the conditions

for industrial injuries benefit. This would appear to involve certain marginal changes. On the other hand, it would seem that on the first day of injury under the new arrangement benefits will not be paid, whereas under the previous regulations they were paid.
The Minister has already mentioned anomalies. I often wonder at the number of anomalies which hon. Members must have to bring to the attention of the Committee. She and her colleagues always manage to find time to deal sympathetically and carefully with cases which are referred to them, and I wonder how they have had the time to bring in a Bill of such complexity. There are far too many anomalies requiring discretion on the part of the Ministry. If we did not have provisions such as subsection 4 of this Clause many of these anomalies would not arise.
On at least four occasions since I became a Member of Parliament I have had cases in which a time limit was involved. In two of those cases the Ministry used discretion and, in the special circumstances, awarded benefit which otherwise would not be paid. In the other two cases, on the other hand, it was not possible to make payment.
9.30 p.m.
I will mention two of the cases briefly. One was of a man who had served a considerable number of years in the Australian Army. He returned to this country and after an interval of 18 months he was not thought to be entitled to benefit. It later transpired that his payments in Australia entitled him to benefit here. He found, however, that a time limit was involved. Only when the Minister was prepared to use discretion was the money paid.
The other case is of a constituent from Cathcart who was in Germany for three years. Apparently, he now finds that he is entitled to benefit under a scheme provided by the Ministry. On the other hand, because of the time limit, it appears that he is not entitled to payment, although I hope that in this case, too, the Minister will exercise discretion.
Bearing in mind these cases and others which have been brought to my attention, and others which hon. Members meet from time to time, it is particularly unfortunate that unless there is a very good reason, we should in subsection (4)


again be introducing a time limit. The Clause states that
Unless…regulations otherwise provide, no sum shall be paid to any person on account of injury benefit in respect of any day more than six months earlier than the date on which the claim for the benefit is made.
This appears to me to be the introduction of another time limit. If it is, it is unfortunate. There may be an extremely good reasons for it. If there is, I would appreciate getting it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for the way he has put his questions. It is not my intention to imply any resentment at the time occupied by the debate, since the discussion has been valuable. The hon. Member for Cathcart has done better than Mr. Pickwick when he went to Dingley Dell and unearthed the paving stone from Old Dick's house on which he made his mark.
In simple language, the first answer to the hon. Member is that in some of these cases, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) will agree, we cannot have an open-ended provision which does not limit the period within which claims can be made, because this would have the effect of removing any limitation upon claims. As the hon. Member has rightly said, Ministers of both parties have exercised their discretion in dealing with cases.
The more complicated the legislation becomes, the more difficult it is to avoid anomalies. If I may add a comment without sounding pompous, I believe that, irrespective of party politics, the time is coming when we might look deeply into the entire problem of social security and social welfare in the hope that we can, without party polemics, discover a more simple answer to these great problems.
I turn now to my brief. The subsection introduces a bar upon the payment of injury benefit for any day more than six months before the date of the claim, whereas previously there was no limit. This is the same as the limitation for sickness benefit imposed by Section 49(4) of the National Insurance Act.
This power is similar to that contained in the National Insurance Act, and is

taken to vary these conditions by regulations. It is intended to use this power, should the sickness benefit condition at any time be changed, to keep the injury benefit limit in line. I hope that, because of the time, the Committee will consider that an adequate answer to the question.

Sir K. Joseph: This is an important Clause. The right hon. Lady, on Second Reading, gave us a figure by which to measure its importance. I, personally, was staggered by the fact that according to the right hon. Lady no fewer than 600,000 cases a year will lose under this Clause injury benefit for a day; but, as the right hon. Lady went on to explain, there are offsetting advantages under the Clause.
What we should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, if he can—and it may be very difficult—is whether, in general, some people, because of this Clause, will lose benefit for industrial injury altogether. I think that the answer to that is "No." I think all we are dealing with is the day on which the injury occurred. I think that we can all commend the purpose of the Clause—harmonising the industrial injury and the sickness conditions; but will the Parliamentary Secretary reassure us that there is no single industrial injury case which he thinks will lose benefit under this Clause?

Mr. Harold Davies: I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. It was well worth probing.
This Clause brings industrial injury provisions, on days of incapacity for which a person is entitled to injury benefit, into line with those in the National Insurance Act, determining such days for sickness benefit by repealing the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act on waiting days, linking of days of incapacity and provision for the day of the accident, and substituting National Insurance Act rules. It also introduces the provision, as in the National Insurance Act, preventing the payment of injury benefit, unless regulations otherwise prescribe, for more than six months prior to the claim.
These changes arise because payment of earnings-related sickness benefit with the injury benefit makes it difficult to have different rules applicable to similar


elements of the same claim and payment. They will also remove existing complexities which frequently cause errors. The Clause also extends the maximum period for which a higher rate of death benefit for widows may be prescribed from 13 to 26 weeks after death. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman now feels I have given him an adequate answer.

Sir T. Brinton: I hope this is not a foolish question, but could the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explain to me what the difference is between subsection (1, a), by which we are removing the provision of the Industrial Injuries Act, and subsection (2, b), which appears to me to say exactly the same thing? We are talking about 12 days of incapacity in both cases. Is there any difference between these two paragraphs, or have I misread them?

Mr. Davies: Subsection (l, a), repeals the provision of Section 11(1) of the Industrial Injuries Act which secures that two periods of incapacity within the injury benefit period link for waiting days purposes—the injury benefit period has a maximum of 26 weeks. Under the National Insurance Act the link is limited to 13 weeks.
The hon. Member went on to subsection (2, b). The hon. Gentleman says that they appear to mean exactly the same, but subsection (2, b) introduces the National Insurance Act rules for waiting days; that is, they will be payable only when there are 12 days of interruption of employment in the period of interruption of employment and falling within 13 weeks of the first day of incapacity.
This will enable the injury benefit waiting days to be paid immediately where there is a previous linked spell of unemployment or sickness of 12 days or more; whereas hitherto the claimant has had to wait until 12 days of the injury benefit period have been completed. On the other hand, in the very few instances where there are two spells of incapacity due to the relevant accident within the injury benefit period separated by more than 13 weeks, these will no longer be linked for waiting days purposes.
I would recommend hon. Members to read that in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning. If any hon. Member understands it at the first attempt, he

is a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster will accept that explanation, until he reads it tomorrow in HANSARD.

Sir T. Brinton: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am glad that he is having as much difficulty as I am, because they seem to me to have very much the same meaning.

Miss Herbison: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no objection if I try to give an explanation of it in a few sentences.
Section 5(1) is repealing the Act as it applies to industrial injuries at present. Subsection (2) is now applying to industrial injuries the same rules as apply to National Insurance. It is important that the rules should be exactly the same since the £2 15s. is to be placed on the top of the earnings-related sickness benefit.
That is the simple explanation. The first subsection repeals certain existing provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act and the second subsection applies the National Insurance rules to industrial injuries.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(INCREASE OF DISABLEMENT PENSION IN CASES OF EXCEPTIONALLY SEVERE DISABLEMENT.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: We would like to congratulate the right hon. Lady on her good fortune and her good will in being able to legislate McCorquodale so quickly. Clauses 6 and 7 are "McCorquodale" Clauses. There is a technical point on the next one which I should like to ask, but I take it that Clause 6 is going to bring great benefit to relatively few people. I think that the number is about 1,000 people, is it not?

Miss Herbison: Yes.

Sir K. Joseph: I thought that it was that sort of order of magnitude. Can the right hon. Lady tell us, from the experience of the Ministry, whether it will benefit some hundreds of people each year in future or probably only some scores, if the previous pattern continues?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Clause is an advance, but, looking at it, I am not sure that we could not have improved it a little. It helps the few people who require constant attendance, but I am not sure that we have got the definition of " constant attendance" on disabled people exactly right. There are those people who are disabled and who require constant attendance in their homes, and I gather that the Clause is to help them with the increase that is available under it of £3 a week.

9.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The £3 will go not only to people at home—these are the people who get the normal constant attendance allowance—but to pensioners and industrially disabled people in hospital who do not get this allowance.

Mr. Lewis: That is the point which I wanted the right hon. Lady to clear up.
If a society, a hospital, or a home, is looking after disabled people, and has attached to it a small workshop where these people are employed, will it get the extra £3? At the moment, if an organisation has such a set-up, it takes almost the whole allowance which an individual gets from the State and gives that person a small amount of pocket money. Because the present allowance is small, the individual concerned gets a very small sum of money indeed.
I hope that this Clause will help those people. I should like to hear from the Minister that the extra money will be given to the organisation running the establishment, and that it will then increase what it pays out as spending money to the people working there.

Mr. Harold Davies: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is, of course, correct in saying that this Clause is the result of the work done by the Committee on Assessments, or, as it is better known, the McCorquodale Committee, and I think that we would all like to pay tribute to its work.
The £3 will be paid out to the organisations which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has in mind. I doubt whether it will be paid to the people who are employed in their workshops. Whether the extra money will be paid to people in institu

tions will depend on the severity of their injuries, but, generally speaking, the answer is that it will be.
This Clause introduces into the Industrial Injuries Scheme a special increase of disablement benefit for the exceptionally severely disabled. It is the increase which was recommended by the Committee on Assessment of Disablement. Unless hon. Gentlemen opposite want to inquire in greater depth into this matter, I shall leave it there.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Ministry, the Government, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee are trying to ensure that disabled people can undertake small jobs so that an increasing number of them will be encouraged to do simple jobs. Despite the fact that these disabled people do simple jobs, they require additional staff to look after them, and I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not think they would be susceptible to this increased amount.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I doubt whether he is in order, because this is a completely different approach to the problem.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In deference to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that perhaps this does not apply to the people about whom I am talking. This is what I am trying to discover. If it does not, I am saying that it should.
Therefore, this is of concern to me and must be of concern to both sides of the House. An increasing number of these people will be encouraged to do jobs. Because of this it might be thought that they should not qualify for this increased attendance allowance, but they will nevertheless still need attendance in their leisure hours and when they go sick, and therefore, should get this increase. The societies making provision for these people and the people themselves will be disadvantage^ because they will not get this allowance.

Mr. Harold Davies: I apologise to the hon. Member for having interrupted. I was dealing with the Report to which this Clause refers, namely, the Committee on Assessment, known as the McCorquodale Committee, which dealt with this £3 allowance for the exceptionally disabled.


There is great sympathy on both sides of the House for the hon. Gentleman's point, but at this juncture, I am afraid, it has nothing directly to do with Clause 6. Those of us who have seen the work which paraplegics already do know that provision exists for help to them through this Ministry and other organisations.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Lady herself to clear up this point, because I am very serious about this and I do not want to let it go? Can this be looked at before Report stage to see whether, since this is limited as it is at the moment, it can be extended to include these people?

Miss Herbison: I think that there is a misunderstanding here. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) showed clearly that they understood that Clauses 6 and 7 implement the recommendations of the McCorquodale Committee. The Committee's Report is one of the most lucid Reports which I have ever read, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) will read the Report. Because of his particular interest in this subject, I know that he will find the Report most interesting.
We have carried out to the full those recommendations which could be dealt with in a Bill of this kind. The Committee considered both limb and other disablements. One recommendation which they made was based on the fact that a man may be assessed as 100 per cent. disabled, but cannot be assessed as 150 per cent. or 200 per cent. disabled. The highest basic pension which a man can receive is 100 per cent., no matter how serious his disability.
The men who are catered for under Clauses 6 and 7 are those very severely disabled men who the McCorquodale Committee felt deserved something extra. The Government decided to give them an extra £3 a week. This extra £3 a week will be paid not only to those with above the normal constant attendance allowance but also to those very seriously disabled men who are in hospital where the constant attendance allowance is not paid. This applies to people in any kind of

hospital—it does not need to be a State hospital—they now get no attendance allowance because the hospital provides attendance for them, but, under the Bill, provided they are very seriously disabled, they will get the extra £3 in recognition of the nature of their disability.
That is all that these two Clauses provide. The other matters mentioned by the hon. Member are, of course, of great concern to all of us and we are giving much thought to them in the general review.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I do not want to prolong the debate. I was not suggesting that these two Clauses did not meet a very great need. Of course they do. I accept entirely what is in the Clauses. But it is only by probing in the debate that I have suddenly discovered that they do not cover certain cases which we have begun to treat rather differently since the McCorquodale Committee reported.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order. I feel that this has nothing whatever to do with the Clause, Sir Samuel and I should like your Ruling on the matter.

The Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I have given the matter careful thought and what I have heard so far was in order.

Mr. Lewis: All I am suggesting is that since the McCorquodale Committee reported there has been a move to get more and more of these very disabled people—possibly not 100 per cent. disabled, but certainly 80 per cent. disabled—into homes where they get help and assistance and where they can do a minor job. The right hon. Lady knows my interest in the matter. She also knows that many of these organisations which give assistance to this type of person have no support from the National Health Service and are working outside the National Health Service. Many of them have to raise their money through charity. These organisations ought to be assisted in providing the extra attendance which they give, in the same way, as under the Clause, the right hon. Lady will provide attendance allowance for those who are 100 per cent. disabled. That is all that I am saying. The Clause goes reasonably far but, in my view, not far enough, and she ought to reconsider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ASSESSMENT OF DISABLEMENT.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir K. Joseph: I had not intended to intervene, but I hope that the right hon. Lady will take the opportunity to look at any other extensions of her approach to these seriously disabled people, such as were indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), in the light of advances of attitude towards these people since the McCorquodale Committee reported.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I apologise for speaking, and I shall speak shortly, because I have not taken part in the debates on the Bill up to now. But I want to draw attention to the wording of the Clause. Were it in order, I should call attention to the wording of Clauses 5 and 6, too. In the old days, before the Industrial Injuries Act, the old Workmen's Compensation Act, which this Sill follows, was criticised on the ground that it was unnecessarily complicated for the workmen who had to try to understand it. Look at what has happened—and I am referring to Clause 7. Consider the situation of a Member of Parliament who may be approached by a constituent who has suffered an industrial injury—perhaps a serious injury—and who wants

to know the assessment to which he is entitled. The hon. Member says to his constituent, "Let us look at Clause 7 of the National Insurance Act, 1966"—and it will be an Act by then. They sit down together and look at this Clause, and perhaps at Clauses 5 and 6, too.
As I came into the Chamber I heard the Parliamentary Secretary talking about Clause 5. I guarantee that the Clauses are quite incomprehensible to anyone in those circumstances who has suffered an industrial injury or to any Member of Parliament who does his best to help his constituent. We are not dealing with the Finance Act, on which we have solicitors and accountants to advise on the meaning of the Act. We are dealing with workmen who may approach a Member of Parliament. All I can say is that since the Workmen's Compensation Act was abolished and this Bill introduced, we have taken a long step backwards. I always try to be constructive. I suggest that as we have a Consolidation Committee of the House of Commons—and it has been perhaps I should say my misfortune to have the duty of sitting on it—which is an entirely non-political body at which we consider consolidation Measures, we might consider consolidating the law on various matters and—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RHODESIA (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS)

10.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Exports and Imports) Order, 1966, dated 20th January, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
The object of this Order is to restrict the import into Rhodesia and the export from Rhodesia of such products as the Secretary of State may specify by an Order or Orders under his hand. To date, he has specified two products, chrome and tobacco, which have become prohibited exports by virtue of Orders made by the Secretary of State on 20th January and 7th February, respectively. He has not yet forbidden the import of any product into Rhodesia under this Order.
It might be helpful to the House if I were first to explain the legal effect of the Order. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 1, as the House will see, forbid the export or the import, as the case may be, from or into Rhodesia of specified products, save to the extent that the Secretary of State makes Regulations authorising such transactions. Paragraph (3) of the Article prohibits the making or performance of contracts for the export or import of any specified products, or the making or performance of a contract for the sale of such products which are intended for export or import, or the doing of any act, such as acting as an agent, which is calculated to promote the export or import.
Under Article 1(4) it is an offence to contravene any of these provisions. As the Order extends to Southern Rhodesia as well as to the United Kingdom, this offence may be committed by anyone of whatever nationality within the jurisdiction of either country. It may also be committed anywhere in the world by a United Kingdom or Rhodesian citizen, including a United Kingdom or Rhodesian company.
Article 1(5) prescribes the effect of the Order on existing and future contracts in relation to specified products. All

such contracts, whether made before or after 20th January, when the Order came into operation, are rendered void, and so is any future transfer in pursuance of any such contract. This is the normal position under both English and Rhodesian law, when a statute prohibits a conclusion or performance of a particular kind of contract, and the provision in paragraph (5)(a), which renders a contract absolutely void, is merely declaratory of the law. The effect of these provisions, therefore, is that if the contract has not been fully performed by the time it becomes void the parties are then released from their obligations under it, and cannot be sued either in the Rhodesian or in the English courts for failing to perform the contract.
However, if the vendor has already delivered the goods he can sue for reasonable recompense for the goods, subject to the deduction of reasonable expenses incurred by the purchaser. Similarly, if the purchaser has paid money before that date, he can sue to recover it, subject, again, to the deduction of reasonable expenses incurred by the vendor. This, again, is the normal position in both English and Rhodesian law.
If, however, the parties to the contract which the Order makes illegal purport to transfer property in pursuance of the contract, sub-paragraph (b) secures that the purchaser will get no title to the property. If money is paid in pursuance of such a contract, the money will be irrecoverable by reason of the proviso to the paragraph.
Perhaps I can give an example of how this may work. Let us suppose that a person in Rhodesia now buys tobacco with the intention of exporting it. He cannot get a good title to the tobacco and may subsequently find it taken from him, but if he pays for it his money will be irrecoverable, so he will lose both ways. But if he had entered into the contract before the date of the Order he may, under the law of both countries, recover what he has paid, even though the contract is now void and cannot lawfully be further performed.
Article 2 prescribes the penalties and makes appropriate provision for the institution of criminal proceedings. Articles


3 and 4 are, I think, self-explanatory, but the House will note under Article 3(3) that Orders and Regulations made by the Secretary of State are subject to annulment by Resolution of either House.
So far, I have endeavoured to describe the legal effect of the Order. I should now like briefly to explain why the Government have thought it necessary to take this particular step towards the restoration of constitutional rule in Rhodesia. The purpose of the Order is to increase the effectiveness of our economic sanctions and, in particular, to enable us to reinforce the action which other countries are taking to bring trade with Rhodesia to a halt.
There are really two aspects to this matter. As the House will recall, we have ourselves banned the importation of Rhodesian goods, such as tobacco, by the machinery of revocation of import licences. In many cases, other Governments have followed our example, but, in some cases, they have, because of legislative difficulties, merely requested their importers to fall into line with British practice. By rendering illegal under the law of Rhodesia the export of the products in question, the present Order produces the result that foreign importers who, despite the wishes of their own Governments, would otherwise feel obliged to carry on with their existing contracts, can now rely on "supervening illegality" or, as it is sometimes described, force majeure, and they can plead this to relieve them of obligations under existing contracts.
Furthermore, even where there are no existing contracts in question, foreign importers and suppliers will usually be prepared, as we have found from experience, to respect our law and to refrain from undertaking any further transactions of the sort we have made illegal. For example, the Order was applied to chrome on 20th January this year so as to illegalise current chrome contracts. The United States, who are by far the largest importers of Rhodesian chrome, thereupon requested American importers to cease importing chrome from Rhodesia. Their importers will now be in a position to comply with this request.
The second aspect of the matter is this. The Order in Council will strike at transactions in which speculators might buy Rhodesian products with the aim of securing a rich killing. Such merchants might speculate on the fall of the illegal régime and may therefore try to acquire Rhodesian goods now or in the near future at knock-down prices with the intention of storing them in Rhodesia or elsewhere and disposing of them at a profit at some future date when normal lawful Government is restored in Rhodesia. It was to prevent such transactions as those that the Government have already specified tobacco, which clearly plays a critical part in the Rhodesian economy. Not only will the Government's action prevent a valuable accretion of foreign exchange to the illegal régime, but the Government also have in mind that we would be preventing one of the most valuable assets in the Rhodesian economy—which will be badly needed when there comes the task of reconstruction—being dissipated for the benefit only of speculators.
There is the further point that these measures aimed at speculators protect the position of those legitimate traders, British and otherwise, who have loyally carried out our policy. It was for these reasons that after full consultation with the Tobacco Advisory Committee, which is the representative body of the industry, that the Government decided that it was necessary to specify tobacco as a product which it was prohibited to sell for export in Rhodesia. The other major importers of Rhodesian tobacco, in addition to the United Kingdom, have already banned the import of tobacco from Rhodesia and we have no doubt that all countries collaborating in these matters will take appropriate action to ensure that our legislation aimed at preventing speculation is respected.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assist me? Could he tell me what paragraph of this Order makes it illegal to buy tobacco for storing?

The Attorney-General: Any purchase of tobacco after the Order, where that tobacco is intended for sale outside Rhodesia, is illegal.

Mr. Paget: But if it is intended for storing and not for sale outside Rhodesia, surely that is legal?

The Attorney-General: The speculator against whom the Order is aimed would not obtain a title to the tobacco, and if he paid any money in respect of it he would lose his money as well.

Mr. Paget: Why?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend is not able to follow the Order, but I can assist him no further.
Unhappily there is no doubt that this Order, like the other Measures which the Government have found it necessary to take in consequence of the illegal declaration of independence, will cause loss and perhaps hardship to Rhodesians many of whom are loyal British subjects. This, unfortunately, is an inevitable consequence of this rebellion.
Economic sanctions naturally bear heavily on those engaged in economic activities, but it is not the farmers and small tradesmen of Rhodesia at whom this Order is directed. The sole purpose of the Government now, as always, is to hasten the restoration of a lawful Government in Rhodesia. To achieve this we must bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on the illegal rebel authorities. That is the purpose of this Order which I now invite the House to approve.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Would the Attorney-General answer one question before he concludes? If the Order is deemed to be of the importance of which the Attorney-General has spoken, why was it deferred until 20th January?

The Attorney-General: The economic sanctions have been cumulative in their effect. This is yet a further step in the enforcement of effective sanctions. It was hoped that the earlier sanctions would have had the necessary effect. That has proved not to be the case, and so the enforcement of further sanctions has been necessary to achieve the objective of the Government.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: The Attorney-General has explained the legal purpose of the Order with his usual lucidity and has also

given the reasons which have prompted the Government to make it. It is of particular importance, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, to subsidiary companies of United Kingdom companies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree that there has not been, and there is not now, any suggestion that those companies have not been abiding by the policies of Her Majesty's Government regardless of their views on the merits of the policies which are being pursued. I hope also that the House as a whole will accept that it is natural and in their own interests, as well as in the longer-term interests of both Britain and Rhodesia, that these men in Rhodesia on whom the Order bites should be looking ahead to the time when normal business can once again be resumed.
I should like to ask the Attorney-General two questions. First, on the face of it, the Order seems to impose a very heavy burden on those men and women, loyal subjects of Her Majesty, who are actually on the ground in Rhodesia and having to face all the difficulties of going about their daily work under an illegal Government. Do the learned Attorney-General and his colleagues really consider that the exercise of the powers which are sought here and which have been implemented in the two cases the Attorney-General mentioned are likely to be effective, bearing in mind that the Smith Government have themselves taken the most sweeping powers in a contrary direction? I am told, for instance, that the Smith Government have already ordered some employees in a number of companies to remain at their jobs.
The second point of detail on the Order is this. I hope that the Attorney-General will assure the House that in future, in so far as the Government consider it necessary to restrain the activities of either British subsidiaries or employees of British subsidiaries in Rhodesia, they will in all cases first approach those in charge of the parent companies in Britain. I see no reason why this should not be done, and I know that those in Britain who control companies which have subsidiaries in Rhodesia are very conscious indeed, as I hope the Attorney-General is, of the difficulties which will be experienced by


employees of subsidiary companies in Rhodesia who are faced with the complications which are imposed by the Order.

The Attorney-General: I give that assurance on behalf of the Government immediately in regard to any future products that may have to be specified.

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
On the more general aspects of the Order, it certainly is not my purpose to go over again the history of all that has happened since U.D.I. Indeed, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained in detail the nature of the Order and the legal consequences. However, we have to consider this Order in the context of the Government's overall policy for dealing with the situation which has arisen in Rhodesia.
For reasons which I will give the House in a moment, I hope that the House will not oppose this Order, but that is not to say that there is anyone in the House, or indeed, I think one could say, outside, who can be happy with the position which has now been reached.
The purpose of the Order, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, is to add a further sanction to those which have been imposed already, but it is wholly wrong to consider the question of sanctions in isolation. Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They are merely a means to an end, and that end, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said, is to persuade the people of Rhodesia to turn back to moderation and to constitutional rule.
The tragic situation in Rhodesia at the end of the day can be solved only by conciliation. Therefore, in considering both the purpose of this Order and also the likely consequences of the action taken under it, it is also necessary to consider the Government's proposals to encourage Rhodesia to return to the path of constitutional government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not get too wide. We are debating the Order itself and he must link what he is saying to the Order.

Mr. Barber: I do not want to detain the House more than two or three minutes. I appreciate that this is not a debate in which we can go into the whole question once again of the policy of the Government and the Opposition. The point which I seek to make is simply that when one is considering whether or not one should give approval to an Order of this kind, which has very serious consequences for people in Rhodesia, it is necessary, as the Prime Minister himself has said on a number of occasions, to consider any sanctions in the context of the policy which the Government are pursuing to try to encourage the illegal régime in Rhodesia to return to a state of normality.
On 25th January the Prime Minister made a major statement in the House in which he set out the Government's aims and purposes. I will not weary the House with all that the right hon. Gentleman said, but he started by referring to the pacification side of economic measures and the pacification side of the Government's policy. I will not go over that ground again. Suffice to say that we on this side of the House have very real reservations—and I hope that the whole House will respect these reservations as sincerely held—as to the likelihood of the plan which the Prime Minister announced on 25th January succeeding.
I say that because to those in Rhodesia who are faced with the sanctions already imposed and now see these new sanctions, so far in respect only of chrome and tobacco—I say that because to those in Rhodesia to whom, if I may so call it, the Prime Minister's peace plan was directed, and whom it is necessary to influence if the objective of all of us is to be attained—to many of them that plan will seem almost like unconditional surrender. Unless Rhodesia is to slide as a result of economic sanctions into chaos, the policy of sanctions must be accompanied by a realistic attempt at conciliation.
I had hoped to remind the House, but in the light of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue it now, of the two important respects in which we on this side of the House disagree with the proposal put by the Prime Minister on 25th January. All I say now is that unless a policy of economic sanctions and a


genuine and realistic attempt at conciliation go hand in hand, there is a real danger that further sanctions, of which this is one, may drive the Rhodesians to extremes rather than bring them to moderation. This is surely an anxiety, whatever our differences may be, which must be shared by everyone on both sides of the House.
That is all I have to say on the merits of extending the area of sanctions as proposed by this Order. Depending to some extent on how the Order is implemented in future, it is a comparatively small extension of the existing major sanctions and is, in a sense, consequential. But there is one overriding consideration which I urge upon the House. For all the doubts and anxieties which my hon. Friends feel about the way in which the Government's policy on Rhodesia is developing, I cannot think that it would be right to oppose an Order which is merely an extension of that policy at a time when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is in Africa for the express purpose of making an on-the-spot assessment of the position.
My right hon. and learned Friend has spent ten days in Rhodesia. He has had an opportunity to meet people of all races, and, as the House knows, he is now in Zambia.

Sir Knox Cunningham: That is more than the Secretary of State has done.

Mr. Barber: That is true. This is the first time that any member of either Front Bench has visited Rhodesia since U.D.I. Whatever the reservations that some of my hon. Friends may have about the Order, I hope that they will consider it right in these circumstances not to oppose it.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I support the Order, but first I want to make a brief comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). He made the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is in Rhodesia assessing the situation. Obviously I must not go beyond the terms of the Order, but I must say that the right hon. Gentleman did not make

a bad start in that direction. But I think it is a scandal that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral has visited Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may or may not be a scandal—the Chair has no opinion on that—but we must discuss the Order.

Mr. Heffer: I will endeavour to do what the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale has done, Mr. Speaker, and that is to keep within the terms of the Order. But the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral had been in Rhodesia and I was merely making a comment in relation to that point.
We must discuss the Order in relation to the overall situation. I want to refer to some remarks made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who, in his constituency on 31st January, challenged the Government's policy in relation to sanctions, which I assume is also in relation to this Order. He said
The policy of sanctions is being gleefully pursued as a kind of holy war.
The right hon. Gentleman further said:
The defeat of Smith seems now to be regarded as an end in itself and the purpose for which sanctions were imposed is being forgotten.
I had always thought that the purpose of the imposition of sanctions was precisely to get rid of the illegal régime and to put in its place a lawful government which would be in proper relationship with the British Government. Apparently, I was mistaken. We are told that we are gleefully pursuing sanctions. I do not see any right hon. Gentleman on either Front Bench gleefully pursuing sanctions. Sanctions were introduced only after the illegal action of Smith and his régime.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I make no comment on the rightness or wrongness of anything the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, but this is not a general debate on sanctions. It is a debate on a particular sanction imposed by this particular Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Order.

Mr. Sandys: Am I in order in interrupting the hon. Member and drawing his attention to a passage in my speech which he has not quoted?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question of order. It is a question of whether the hon. Gentleman allows the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Sandys: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He has quoted a passage from my speech which he has carefully selected. May I read to him the passage which went immediately before that? I said:
The extra sanctions against Rhodesia…will add little to the pressures which are already being applied. They are clearly intended primarily to satisfy African opinion.
I believe that to be true.
But, like all previous measures, they will fail to achieve this purpose. Their only effect will be to increase bitterness among the White Rhodesians and to consolidate them further behind Ian Smith.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for quoting that part of his speech, for I was just coming to it and he has done it for me. He said that sanctions were clearly primarily intended to satisfy African opinion. I had no idea that the Government were introducing sanctions, including this Order, to satisfy African opinion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. By merely occasionally mentioning the Order the hon. Gentleman does not bring the rest of his remarks within order. I have allowed him to make some observations. I see no mention of the name of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in the Order, nor of sanctions in general. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to this sanction and to why he will support it or vote against it.

Mr. Heffer: I have not yet been sufficiently long in the House to be able to overcome these difficulties with which hon. Members are sometimes faced, but I am doing my best. It is very difficult to discuss the application of one specific Order without at the same time relating it to the overall situation, as was appreciated by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. I have endeavoured to relate the Order to the overall situation.

Mr. Speaker: Can I help the hon. Gentleman? I appreciate his difficulty. The Chair is not being fractious or pedantic. One of the most difficult debates in the House, as hon. Members know, is a debate on an Order. It is a very narrow debate.

Mr. Heffer: The objection is this. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale that the Opposition are not going to oppose the Order. At the same time there is no great enthusiasm for it. This indicates very clearly the position of the Opposition in this situation. When the Government were forced to embark upon these measures and step by step various sanctions were proposed, we were told by the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that they were supporting the Government in their endeavours.
There were certain qualifications, and now we find that on each occasion when Orders have come before the House, including this one, the qualifications grow. Now we are told that although they are not proposing to vote against the Order it may, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, drive the Rhodesians to extremes. Which Rhodesians? The illegal government of Mr. Smith? I suggest that before this Order ever came into existence that Government of Southern Rhodesia was moving in a direction of extremes. The mere illegal declaration of independence was an extreme. The Bishop of Matabeleland, who was vicar of my parish church, prior to his present appointment, and who is well-known in Liverpool as a gentleman with some standing in the Church of England, renowned for his sincere and advanced views in the Church—

Mr. Paget: Are his ideas in the Order?

Mr. Heffer: One thing is certain, none of my hon. and learned Friend's ideas are in this Order. They are the very opposite. The point I am making is that there was in The Guardian, only two days ago, an article by the Bishop of Matabeleland, pointing out that the type of policies being pursued by Smith are precisely the opposite to law and order and indicate that the white Rhodesians, as far as Smith is concerned, have already gone to extremes.
To say that this Order is going to move the Smith régime to extremes is quite ridiculous. They are already in that position. What is the answer? Is it to carry out some sort of gentlemanly negotiations with the Smith régime, or is it to ensure that this type of Order is carried out to the full? The answer


is obviously that we must ensure that this matter is brought to a speedy conclusion by the passing of the Order.
I find it rather difficult to raise some of the points, because the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, who spoke for the Opposition, raised many points—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman to order, as I called the hon. Member himself to order. The Chair is fair to both sides.

Mr. Heffer: I appreciate that you are being fair to both sides, Mr. Speaker, but we are in the difficulty that at the same time as we are discussing an important Order we have had from the right hon. Gentleman a criticism of the Government's measures. This was clearly said—I noted it as it was said—in relation to the plan put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th January. I do not know how I can say that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude and relate my remarks to the Order. It is difficult for me to say this. However, I think I have made the point that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I certainly support the Order.
I conclude my speech, because it is obvious that I shall not get far in pursuing this, by referring to reports that are coming through this evening. I am not sure whether this is specifically concerned with the Order, but I understand that it refers to "any specified product". I understand that 30,000 tons of oil—[HON. MEMBERS: "Gallons."]—I am sorry, 30,000 gallons of oil, have today been moved into Southern Rhodesia from South Africa. This is a serious situation.
I hope that the Government will take full note of the actions of the South African Government, who are allowing that to happen. I suggest that we should consider taking this matter to the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, that may be true, but I do not see that it comes within the Order.

Mr. Heffer: I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope that the point I have made will be noted by my right hon. Friends and that, at the same time, the House will support the Order.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) stated that from the beginning he had thought that the purpose of the sanctions was to "get rid of Smith". I rather agree with the hon. Member. I think that this was always the Government's intention, but that was not how the matter appeared at the beginning.
These Orders take us a very long way from the position we were in when we first discussed economic measures against Rhodesia last November. We were then told that there would be no total trade embargo. The idea of oil sanctions was at first discounted when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition inquired about it. Here we are this evening, putting on the last 5 per cent. of sanctions of which this country is capable. There is, I understand, nothing more that we can do to tighten the economic embargo.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Amery: I may be wrong. If there is more that we can do, perhaps the Liberals will tell us.
I understand from what the Prime Minister has said that tonight's Order brings the sanctions to 100 per cent.
I do not know whether this and the other Orders have been introduced under pressure from the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, or whether they are a last desperate throw of the Government to break the camel's back. But I submit that these Orders are an admission of the failure of the policy of sanctions and that if the sanctions had been suceeding, this Order would not have been necessary.
Like many other hon. Members, I have recently been in Rhodesia. I do not propose to weary the House with any account of my experiences, but I would say that it is becoming increasingly apparent to all of us, I think on both sides—and the hon. Member for Walton will probably agree with what I say—that with or without these Orders there will not be what the Government's advisers, in their horrid phrase, call a "quick kill" of Southern Rhodesia.
There was a time when the Prime Minister spoke—I think at Lagos—about


sanctions being effective in weeks rather than months. The Commonwealth Secretary, in a speech he made last week, gave the impression that it would be months rather than weeks. And yet, even with the addition of these sanctions, I think that the whole policy will collapse, because delay must be fatal to the policy. Other countries will support it only if there is to be a quick kill. If there is no sign of a quick kill international support will become frayed at the edges. The Commonwealth Secretary knows this as well as, perhaps better than, I do.
I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in saying that sanctions are only a means to an end. We have to see for ourselves what is the object for which these Orders are being introduced. What is their object? I was never in any doubt myself, though I can well understand that others, on both sides of the House, may have thought the Government were introducing other sanctions and these were the purpose of bringing Mr. Smith to the conference table once again. If anyone had any beliefs of this kind they must have been rudely shattered by the Prime Minister's statement on the day we reassembled after the Christmas Recess.
The object of these sanctions has been made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister. It is to establish, first of all, a period of direct rule. I know that this has been denied in terms, but the idea is that the Governor should rule with the help of an executive council. To whom should this council be responsible?

Mr, Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member so far has been in order. He is now stepping out of it.

Mr. Amery: I beg only to submit that these Orders are a means to an end, and the end we are faced with by the Government has been newly expressed since we last debated these matters before the Recess. It was only on the day the House reassembled, and there has been no Rhodesian debate since then, that the Prime Minister defined for the first time in categorical terms the purpose of this policy, and here for the first time we are discussing a means to implement that policy. With very great respect, I would

submit that I would be in order if I were to comment very briefly—and I undertake, only very briefly—on the object—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we debate what happens if these sanctions do or do not achieve their purpose, then we open wide a debate on Rhodesia. The right hon. Member must link his remarks to the Order.

Mr. Amery: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am not seeking to discuss what will happen if the sanctions do or do not succeed. I am only seeking to discuss what their direct purpose is. Their direct purpose is to establish, as the Prime Minister explained to us the other day, a Governor's council, responsible not to the Legislature in Rhodesia, but to the Commonwealth Secretary and, therefore, to this House. That was the only point I was trying to make.
The other point, as I understand him, he was trying to demand was the early establishment of majority rule. I am not going into the modalities by which he is trying to establish this, but it seemed to me quite clear from the terms he used that the other purpose of the Order, like that of the Orders before it, is to bring about majority rule a good deal sooner than it would have come about under the 1961 Constitution. And after the recent events in Nigeria each of us can have his own opinions whether this right or wrong—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am deeply sympathetic with the attitude of every hon. Member and right hon. Member who seeks on this Order to open a debate on Rhodesia—sanctions, what has happened in the past, what is to happen in the future; but we are discussing this Order, and must stick to it.

Mr. Amery: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to go beyond what I have said. I was only trying to relate these Orders to the purposes which the Prime Minister had in mind, which appeared to me to be a period of direct rule and the early imposition of majority rule.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale that the Orders do not in themselves change or affect the situation very greatly. To some extent, they are consequential on


those that we have agreed before. Nevertheless, I feel the strongest reservations about them, not because of what they contain themselves, but because of the principles and the polices whch they are intended to serve.
So I come to the question of what we should do about them and how we should vote. My right hon. Friend has advised us not to divide the House, and I always harken to the advice that he gives. I want to be as helpful as I can in the matter. I recognise that we on this side are in some difficulty. The last time we discussed these matters some of my hon. Friends voted with the Government. They may have been in difficulty since, and I do not want to exacerbate any conflict that there may be between consistancy and constituency.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is also in some difficulty. It is always a bit awkward to sit on a barbed wire fence, and very difficult to come down from it with dignity and without damage. I should like to help, if I can. But perhaps my help will not be the most valuable for a greater man than I is at hand. Winging back from Africa comes my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale that we will be well advised to see what conclusion our right hon. and learned Friend has reached; because I hope and believe that he will have come to very much the same conclusion as I have from my recent visit to that part of the world. I hope and believe that when he is back, and has given his opinion, we can all line up on the same side of the barricade. I accordingly conclude that the right course would be to harken to the advice of my right hon. Friend and not divide the House tonight.
However, I would add a word of warning to him, and I should like briefly to draw a parallel which I hope will be within the rules of order. On the last occasion that the House discussed a unilateral declaration of independence, Lord North, who headed the Government, was in a very strong position. He had on his side the native population—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now on the wrong side of

the barricade. He must come back to the Order and leave Lord North.

Mr. Amery: I will cut my parallel extremely short, Mr. Speaker. The last time a U.D.I, was discussed in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not even discussing U.D.I. The House is discussing the Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Amery: I do, indeed. I was saying that the last time Orders of this kind were discussed, in another epoch—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not even discussing the Orders which might have been brought before Parliament in the period to which the right hon. Gentleman is wrongly attempting to refer. He must come to the Order.

Mr. Amery: I will, of course, accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and return to the Order.
All that I was urging is that there should be unity in the opposition party inside the House, because it was the absence of unity on a previous occasion which did so much harm to our efforts to save the American colonies.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) says that he and his hon. Friends are in some difficulty. I would do my very best to help them out of it, but I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has not made it very easy for me. Indeed, none of the three speakers from the opposite side has made it very easy, because each of them, despite the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that this Order is a narrow one, still managed to present a contrary view about it.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is waging a holy war against the Order. The right hon. Member for Preston, North says—and this is the main part of his case, or at least the main part of it that was in order—that this Order travels a long way from the original purposes and intentions which were announced by the Government when they first introduced their measures after the declaration of U.D.I.


One would have that that if the right hon. Gentleman were to follow that statement through, he would be compelled to go into the Division Lobby, because if this Order carries the previous sanctions far from what had originally been agreed by the House, that is all the stronger reason, from his point of view, for voting against it.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot say in one breath that the House is being dragged very much further than had previously been thought, and then say that as the leader of those who oppose this process he is not going to take any action against it. What the right hon. Gentleman said was contradicted in advance by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), because he says that this Order is consequential. It cannot at one and the same time be consequential and travel a far distance from what we had originally proposed. It must be one or the other. Thus, eager as I am to help the right hon. Gentleman, he has not assisted me, because in the opening part of his speech he opened a fresh gulf between himself and his right hon. Friend, as if there was not a wide enough gulf there already.
But the right hon. Member for Streatham goes even further. It may be that he is trying to outbid the leader of the Monday Club. He is out for the leadership, because he used much stronger terms. From the speech which I heard quoted, the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to this Order, but was referring to future Orders which were in train. If he was merely referring to the past, there would hardly have been much point in his speech. I presume, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Streatham, that he knows the kind of Order we are discussing. He said that extra sanctions, which is what we are discussing, could only have the effect of increasing bitterness in Rhodesia, of making the whole of the Government's policy, or the country's policy, what he would like to be the country's policy, more difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised it by saying that those who were introducing Orders of this character were guilty of pursuing a holy war against Mr.

Smith. A person who thinks the Government are doing that can hardly sit quiet and refuse to vote on an Order of this nature. So the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that there is not merely a split between the back bench and the Front Bench, but confirms that there is a split on the Front Bench.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to stand by the speech that he made in his constituency, he has a duty to vote tonight. He has no right to make charges of this character against the Government. He is very sensitive about charges about motives, and I think that he has every right to be. We are all eager to protect ourselves against charges about motives, but the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in the light of the advice which you tendered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) just now, I wonder how closely the hon. Member is relating his speech to the Order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will let the Chair take care of order. I am eager to call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to order the moment he gets out of order.

Mr. Foot: What we are discussing—[Interruption.] If the Opposition Chief Whip wants to make a speech, he can rise to his feet like anybody else. That is, on the assumption that he might have anything to say which would be in order. We give him the benefit of the doubt—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see no mention of the Chief Whip in the Order.

Mr. Foot: But we can hear him here, Mr. Speaker.
What the House is discussing, and is entitled to discuss, is the Opposition's attitude to the Order. I was discussing the three interventions which have so far been made from that side of the House and was coming to the fourth, only to find that I cannot pursue that further.
I was remarking that the three speakers from the Opposition so far have presented contrary views to the Order. There is a three-way split already. I think that that is a perfectly valid point, because, after all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tedious repetition."] I do not want to


repeat my remarks for hon. Members' benefit, but I shall have to do so if they interrupt in such a sense. An hon. Member is entitled to repeat something if it is necessary to enlighten other hon. Members. Only tedious repetition is out of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair must be the judge of whether repetition is tedious.

Mr. Foot: And a very good judge too, if I may say so.
We have had these three views. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that, particularly because it is claimed that the Order makes the sanctions almost 100 per cent.—I think that that is the view of the right hon. Member for Preston, North, if I am quoting him correctly—if the House is being invited tonight by the Government to make these sanctions 100 per cent., this is surely an occasion on which those who are opposed to the policy of sanctions should express themselves. I can understand the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, as he has made it clear that he thinks that these measures are purely consequential. Therefore, because he voted for one of these Orders before, he has to vote for this one. We understand that.
But the right hon. Member for Preston is not in that position. He voted against one of the Orders before, and, therefore, he cannot claim that he is voting for it, or passing it, or allowing it to go through by his assent, because it is consequential. He can make no such claim. However, another argument is used by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member stands there as a Simon Pure advocate, voting according to principle every time. He will appreciate the admiration and respect which we had for the élan and courage which he and his hon. Friends showed over Vietnam—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even interventions must be related to the Order which we are discussing.

Mr. Foot: You have taken the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman should not complain about—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Foot: If I were to answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious debate. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would be out of order if he answered.

Mr. Foot: I will come in a moment to the further case presented by the right hon. Gentleman on why we should not vote against the Order, but there are reasons, first of all, for my underlining why I think that it is of great importance that the House should vote for the Order.
I am very gratified to see that, from all the accounts we have had so far and despite the contradictions in their speeches, we are to have a unanimous vote of the House of Commons tonight in favour of the Order and in favour of making sanctions against: Rhodesia 100 per cent. That is what we shall vote on tonight and, despite their speeches, I am very gratified to see it, for this reason above others.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) asked why all these measures had not been introduced at once in the first place—why we had had them in dribs and drabs and why this had not been done earlier. I understand the argument, although it is not an argument for voting against the Order. I understand that the Government originally underestimated the nature of the measures which they had to take, and I am glad that they are now proceeding to further measures.
But there are other reasons, deriving from events in Southern Rhodesia, why we should proceed with the tougher measures outlined in the further sanctions. Every day we read reports in the newspapers of measures which are being taken in Southern Rhodesia Which, far from weakening the resolve of the House, should intensify our resolve. Every day we read of events in Rhodesia which should fortify us in voting for the Order. I refer to the censorship being applied, to people being locked up in prison, to the introduction of fresh methods of apartheid. All these can be read in the newspapers every day.
The House of Commons is responsible for Rhodesia. That was the decision which we took immediately after the


declaration of U.D.I. We took full responsibility for all citizens of Rhodesia on to the shoulders of the House of Commons. When we see events happening in Rhodesia intensifying the Fascist State there, we have every right to proceed with Orders of this nature to make sanctions complete. It is all very well for the Opposition Chief Whip and other hon. Members opposite to shake their heads. Most of the leaders of Rhodesian opinion are in prison. The representative of the Opposition Front Bench who went to Rhodesia has not been allowed to see the leaders there. Whether he asked to se them we do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must get back to the Order. There will be opportunities to debate the other issues on other occasions.

Mr. Foot: I understand that. We are looking forward to the return of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) so that we may have a full debate, particularly in view of the reports which have appeared about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is already doing what I asked him not to do.

Mr. Foot: In that case I apologise.
I conclude by dealing with one other point to which the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale referred—and this must be in order, because the right hon. Gentleman stressed it strongly. He agreed, as we all agree, that we cannot discuss the full objective of the Government's policy, but we are entitled to discuss whether this Order contributes by its effectiveness or ineffectiveness, whichever may be argued, to the achievement of this policy and whether this Order helps to carry forward the policy which has been enunciated by the House and spasmodically supported by the whole House.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to this matter, particularly, and first of all criticised the Order—although he does not intend to vote against it—because he said that it might be ineffective. He did not produce any argument to support the suggestion that it might be ineffective. Indeed, the right hon. Member for

Preston North appeared to object to the Order because he thought that it would be effective. That is a further contradiction between the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is no good the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale shaking his head. He said that he does not believe that the Order will contribute to the policy of conciliation which he believes must be the primary purpose of the sanctions and of the Orders which the House passes. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He certainly made a comment of that nature.
I will quote to him a greater authority than himself, an authority which possibly he will accept, to show that conciliation can mean very different things. It may be said that it can be forwarded by such Orders as this, but before conciliation there is another proposition with which we must proceed.
The first is this. Majority rule for the Africans must be certain".—OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December. 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1994.]
That was the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) last December—at the time when were were pursuing a policy from which we are supposed to have departed now. That is why it is impossible to have the kind of solution suggested by the right hon. Member for Attrincham and Sale; because Mr. Smith will not have it.
There is, therefore, no other course for the House but to proceed with a full policy of sanctions, of which this Order is an essential part. We must make sure that it is known throughout Africa, and in the United Nations, that we are determined to carry it through and that we will not be deflected from doing that by any faint hearts on the benches opposite. It is gratifying—remembering that many other measures may have to be taken later—to me and to many of my hon. Friends to think that we are to have an absolutely unanimous vote tonight in favour of the Government's policy towards Southern Rhodesia.

11.12 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: I intend to speak for approximately two minutes and I may surprise


the House by sticking closely to the subject matter of the Order. I have no desire to divide either side of the House on this issue, which seemed to be the whole purpose of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
If there is any point at all to these restrictions on imports and exports, it is to bring the Government of Rhodesia down. Otherwise, they have no purpose or point whatever. Therefore, the question which we must ask ourselves tonight is whether they will or will not succeed. In the event of their succeeding no better than the other sanctions which have been placed on that Government, the sole effect of them will be to further solidify the opposition of Mr. Smith and further to sever the chance of eventual settlement and compromise. Is that the sort of purpose for which any hon. Member could have wished?
Is it sensible at this time to try to drive even further away from possible co-operation a Government which are already firmly settled in power? I go a step further and say that one cannot really believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that these further sanctions will have a positive or actual effect. It is nonsensical to believe that they can. One must look on them in the light of them being part of an eventual programme of Her Majesty's Government towards the eventual use of force. I think it extremely possible that after these sanctions have been applied, right hon. Gentlemen opposite will say, "We have tried everything". Then—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not dissent from a word the hon. Gentleman says. The possibilities which he seeks to describe may indeed be possible, but they cannot be discussed on this Order.

Viscount Lambton: Forgive me for transgressing, Mr. Speaker. I have tried hard to remain in order. It seemed to me that it would be in order to discuss the outcome of the Order, otherwise it is almost impossible to say virtually anything. I will merely say that the Order can have no result unless it is part of a programme designed by the Government to end in force.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I propose to make a speech which, I hope, will be strictly in order.
The Attorney-General said that these sanctions were required for two purposes. One was to deal with the speculator. In so far as they are designed to do that, they are misconceived and ill-drafted. I will point out to him why.
The speculator who wishes to speculate in tobacco in the hope of making a "killing", as my right hon. and learned Friend put it, when the present emergency comes to an end, does not buy that tobacco with the intention of exporting it. He does not make or carry out any contract for exportation or importation. He does not make or carry out any contract for the sale of the product which he intends, or has reason to believe another person intends, to export. He does not intend to export, and no one else intends to export it. What he intends to do is to hold it in store, probably on the farms, maybe in warehouses, and then when the emergency comes to an end, send it to the tobacco auctions in the ordinary way. There is nothing in this Order to prevent him. There is nothing in this Order which makes that illegal. If that is the object of the Order, the Order fails to that extent.
The second object which the Attorney-General puts to this Order is to deal with the situation of contracts entered into by citizens of countries who have been requested by their Governments not to trade with Rhodesia, but have not been forbidden to do so since the law, as in America, makes it impossible to forbid such contracts, and they are therefore in the difficult position that they may be sued if they do not execute the contracts. Therefore, this Order is to make illegal these contracts, and to allow those contractors in America, or wherever it may be, to escape any consequences of following the advice that has been given to them by their Governments.
I see that as a purpose, and if that is the purpose, why is it served by creating a criminal offence for Rhodesian citizens? We can make these contracts illegal without providing and setting out a criminal sanction involving two year's imprisonment. After all, I have always understood that one of the first rules which we consider when we deal with criminal legislation is not to make crimes when we are not in a position to enforce the criminal law we are making.
Here in Article 1(4, b) we are making a crime for Rhodesian citizens of something which we are not in a position to enforce, and which we very well know will not be observed. Nobody in Rhodesia who is exporting or importing will pay the slightest attention to this provision—we all know that very well. Why, therefore, make it a criminal offence? Why make a crime of something which we know we cannot prevent? It is wholly unnecessary, if the object is simply to make the contract illegal so that American contractors can escape from their contract.
I believe that if there is a respectable object for sanctions, that respectable object is to bring people to the negotiating table; to bring them to the mood in which they will concede those points which one wishes them to concede. Does one do that by making the people whom we are trying to negotiate with criminals?
We began by talking about treason. In my view, and I expressed it at the time, treason as a peacetime offence has been obsolete for 250 years. Having talked about treason, now the Prime Minister, who acknowledges it at least in his capacity as a party leader, is willing to deal with Mr. Smith who is the arch traitor. This is the sort of nonsense we get into when we create fictitious and imaginary criminal offences when we know perfectly well that we cannot enforce the law and no one will seriously imagine that it will be enforced against people in Rhodesia. Why, therefore, stick this sort of nonsense into an Order of this description?
If we are serious in this matter—and remember, this is a very, very serious matter, this is a tragedy in Rhodesia—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is responsible?"] I am not going to argue who is responsible; I happen to think that there are faults on both sides. There are very few quarrels in human affairs, or between husband and wife, in which there are not faults on both sides. Whatever may happen here, this is a tragedy. Our object, and all our objects, in all conscience, should be to bring it to an end. Does this creating of artificial crimes, wholly unnecessary for the

alleged purposes of the Order, really contribute to bringing this tragedy to an end?

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: However sharp may sometimes seem to be the differences between us, I always try when I can to begin with that which joins us. I offer one remark, at the risk of being out of order. May I make a distinction between the aim, I hope, of us all and the means we seek to enforce that aim? I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members of all parties seek to ensure for Rhodesia African advance, educational and economic, and ultimate African majority rule. On that we are united; that is the aim.
I honestly hope that hon. Members will take this debate seriously. Where we begin to debate and differ is on the means we shall use to achieve that aim. This debate on sanctions is about means. I have always greatly admired the Attorney-General, but his language sometimes—as, indeed, all legal language—is so soporific that one forgets in the end the precise meaning of that language. He referred to sanctions, or additional sanctions. I would rather refer to the word "punishment", because that is the honest meaning of the word "sanctions". What we are seeking to do is to impose upon Rhodesia, and to impose indiscriminately, punishment by means of poverty, unemployment and distress.
Those are the words I should have liked to have heard the Attorney-General use when he introduced this Order, because that, beyond any argument, is what we are seeking to do. Let us begin by acknowledging that that, at any rate, is a horrible thing to have to do. From the tone of speeches in this House, that has too seldom been acknowledged. If that is so, the question to which we must address ourselves is this. Are these means effective? These Orders are expressed to be carried out in economic terms, but, in fact, the problem is not economic; it is psychological. I used the word "punishment". The Government have set out to punish a small nation. Usually in history the punishment of small nations has not been successful, but that is what the Government have set out to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with care. He must now narrow his speech towards the Order.

Mr. King: Surely the Order is a punitive one, Mr. Speaker. I have, therefore, sought to argue that the effect of the Order will be punishment.
In considering whether we shall support punishment we must consider the effect of punishment. Punishment can have two effects. It can cause the person or the nation punished to yield. That is what hon. Members opposite hope will happen. Will they not accept, also, that the effect of punishment, whether upon a nation or upon an individual, can equally be to make that nation more obdurate? This is the point which hon. Members opposite have failed to pay attention to in our discussions on sanctions.
To describe the Rhodesians and Rhodesia in a single sentence, they are charming, their country is delightful, and their problems are insoluble. Let no hon. Gentleman think that by means of this Order or by any other means we shall in the foreseeable future—months or years—solve their problems, because we shall not. But we may amelioriate them and there is one diplomatic exercise in which we ought to engage. As hon. Members will know, I have recently been to Rhodesia. I was most interested to talk to those who are commonly called "liberals"—Sir Humphrey Gibbs, Sir Hugh Beadle, Sir Robert Treadgold, Evan Campbell, the Editor of the Rhodesian Herald and a number of others of that type. If the Government are to have any hope of solving this problem, that is the group of people, and the only possible group of people, to whom these measures must appeal.
I condemn the measure, because I am utterly convinced, not that Mr. Smith's opinion of it is of any consequence, but that it will make it more difficult, and, indeed, may make it impossible, to deal with the only other section of European opinion with which ultimately Her Majesty's Government must deal. That is the true nature of the criticism against this Measure.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Would the hon. Gentleman say in what

peculiar way this Order is more severe than the previous Orders applying to tobacco and sugar?

Mr. King: I have already been rebuked by Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to discuss other measures. I should dearly love to do so, but I must confine myself to this one. My point is that an additional punishment of this kind is a wrongful diplomatic exercise. Indeed, if I am allowed to refer to it, which I am sure I am not, the statement of 25th January was the most foolish statement which could have been made, not because it offended Mr. Smith—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting away again from the Order, and the hon. Gentleman must know that he is getting away from it.

Mr. William Baxter: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he was opposed to the Order. Will he, therefore, be voting against it?

Mr. King: That question has been put many times. I can only reply, as has been said before, that the Order by itself is of very little consequence. It is an additional 5 per cent. on what has been done already. My criticism falls not only upon the Order, but—if I am allowed to say so, Mr. Speaker—upon the whole policy of which this is an insignificant part.
I have sought to show, with as much precision as is possible in these difficult circumstances, the reasons for that. I am utterly convinced that an attempt to weaken an opponent—and measures such as this are attempts to weaken Mr. Smith—is an expedient which may be allowed. In so far as the effect of this Order or of similar Orders or of other statements is to humiliate a nation, the Government may defeat the purpose which they have set out to achieve.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for bringing the debate back to the seriousness which befits the subject which we are discussing. I should have thought that all of us would recognise that what we are doing tonight is to complete a design


which, both in its part and in its whole, is something thoroughly distasteful to have to design at all.
The Government know perfectly well that, in so far as I have been able to bring myself to do so, I have supported the principle of sanctions because, in the light of what had happened, I did not see what else could be done, but any hon. Member who imagines that this Order is a mere frill round the design that has already been drawn has not read the Order.
I ask the House to look at the Order again. This gives complete power to the Secretary of State to say wheher anything should be imported from Rhodesia or exported into Rhodesia. Let us realise, therefore, straight away, that we are making it quite clear that unless the Secretary of State likes to select certain things, nothing can come into this country from Rhodesia and nothing can go out from this country into Rhodesia, even indirectly.
I should have thought that that was a very severe thing to do, even if it is only filling in the final part of the design. It is a complete blackout, so far as we are able to bring about a blackout, on any trade between Rhodesia and Britain. Surely, that is a very severe thing to do, and none of us should attempt to under-rate its gravity, whatever has been done before.
One of the things that puzzles me is the timing of this Order. In being asked to accept sanctions in principle I think the House would have expected that, with the crisis building up the way it did before U.D.I., the Government had prepared the ground completely to take the steps which they thought would be necessary when U.D.I, was declared. Yet we have, first of all, some fairly gentle sanctions, except on tobacco. Then we went to oil sanctions and now we have this Order which is the completion of the blackout. I ask the Government to tell us why they have taken this in three stages instead of doing it all at once. It seems to me that they must have had time to prepare the whole programme before U.D.I, was declared. They have implemented whatever they had prepared in stages since then, and I do not under-estimate the gravity of this final stage.
Was the Government's policy to be gentle in the beginning in the hope that those in Rhodesia would see the light, then intensify that with oil sanctions, and then finally complete the picture when they found that oil sanctions were not working as well as they had expected? Was that the plan? There has always been a case for saying, whether it be military or economic action, that the best chance one ever has of making what one intends to do work is to do one's damnedest right at the beginning. Many wars would have been greatly shortened if nations had adopted that policy. Perhaps some nations would have been deterred altogether if they had known what would happen.
In this case, however, after all the rumblings beforehand, after all the threats, which came from my right hon. Friends when in Government as well as from the present Administration—I have never attempted to run away from that one—about the consequences of U.D.I., why, when those warnings were flouted, was the full force of sanctions not made abundantly clear at the start? If that had been done, perhaps by now the situation would not have deteriorated as it has.
First, then, why have sanctions been timed in this way? Why did we not have this Order along with the others we have already approved?
The Attorney-General made no attempt, as far as I can see, to explain why the following words should be in Article I:
Except so far as may be authorised by regulations of the Secretary of State…
and
Except so far as may be authorised as aforesaid…
Secondly, then, what have the Government in mind to except? We are entitled to be told. Or are they looking ahead to an attempt to ensure that, if they have overlooked anything, it will not matter whether it is shipped in to Rhodesia or not because the Secretary can make the appropriate regulation?
Thirdly, what have the Government in mind in Article 1(3, b)? There are many ways in which manufacturers in this country might still get into Rhodesia. One way could be for a manufacturer to have an agent in South Africa shipping his product to Rhodesia via South Africa.


The agent thus operating may or may not be covered by Article 1(4, a), (b) or (c). What have the Government in mind on how they propose to implement Article 1(3, b)? How are they to identify these people?
Further on, Article 2(4) says that
…proceedings for an offence against this Order may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom where any person charged with that offence is for the time being.
Article 2(3), however, states that the proceedings have to be initiated
…not later than twelve months from the date on which the person charged first enters the United Kingdom after committing the offence.
How is this to be administered? How is it to be enforced? It is essential that these things should be known because, if we are not careful, we shall make it possible for some British companies—and these may be some of the speculations the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind—to change their agent in South Africa so that goods can be shipped through by a person not covered by Article 1(4). There are all sorts of loopholes in the Order and we want to be certain from the Government's answers tonight that they have thought out these matters and intend to say loud and clear what they propose to do to enforce the Order. The Attorney-General did not say very much about that.
I have long felt that, once the House decided that sanctions were the right policy, the only hope was to complete the whole design, or we had better not start the thing at all. I very much question the timing and the separation of one Order from another. But, having said that, I must support the Order, subject to receiving the answers for which I have asked, because to have sanctions and not to complete the picture is inviting evasion of the sanctions as a whole.
We are still entitled to say that if the Government want support for this Order, or Orders of this kind, or for the series we have had, they must stop altering the objective on the way to the completion of the job. That is what has tended to happen. It is no good saying at one moment that we want reconciliation and at the next that we want to bring Mr. Smith to his knees. There must be con

sistency and I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to re-establish some consistency, because at the moment there seems to be a drift, if not a reversal, of policy.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) very fairly and properly referred to the thunder, not only from the present Government, but from their predecessor, prior to U.D.I, and asked why it was that the Order was brought in at this stage and why all these Orders were not brought in earlier than they were.
It is for Her Majesty's Government to answer that question. I merely suggest, in passing, that one of the reasons is that the contingency planning about this operation has been wholly inadequate and that it has taken the Government a very long time to catch up with the emergency and face it. It would be out of order to refer to the time which it took to put a radio in the Governor's house and to set up a radio station in Bechuanaland and do many other things, but the delay to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely has very properly alluded is attributable to that fact.
We have heard a lot of thunder against the Order from hon. Members on this side of the House and from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). They have one thing in common—they all voted for all the previous measures, with the possible exception of the oil sanctions. This Order is introduced pursuant to the enabling Act, the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, for which the whole House voted and from which flowed the tobacco sanctions, for which the whole House voted, the sugar sanctions, on which there was unanimity, the reserve bank powers and the oil sanctions, in respect of which there was some little local difficulty on the Opposition side.
But tonight these hon. Members are united, because at the moment they are going through the theatrical enjoyment of "Waiting for Selwyn" and no doubt he will tell them what his view of the Order is when he gets back and they are reserving their judgment of the Order and will not oppose it because they wish to have the Ark of the Covenant


revealed. They will no doubt congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on choosing to go out in a season which was not the rainy season and, unlike Neville Chamberlain, omitting to take an umbrella with him. We shall know how he feels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Order we are discussing.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the greatest and most worthwhile measure of support for this Statutory Instrument will be that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has told us he is to give tonight. He has not only said that these measures are ineffective to appease African nationalism, but that they will solidify European opinion. We know that he is as anxious as anyone to bring down the present régime and see that constitutional rule is restored.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss that on this Order.

Mr. Thorpe: What we are discussing is the last 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of what will become a total trade embargo. This Order will succeed in two respects and it may fail in one other because it is unenforceable. First, it will cause those who seek to profit from the present economic situation in Rhodesia to pause. It will cause one British firm, which is at this moment trying to negotiate to buy ferro-chrome through the medium of a Luxembourg firm, to pause and think again, because it may be committing an offence and it may be involving its employees in being middlemen and therefore in committing an offence.
It may also cause a gentleman in South Africa who is outside the jurisdiction of this Order, and who is hoping to buy tobacco at a knock-down price and sell it on the Dutch market before the Dutch Parliament bring in the necessary legislation, to pause and think before he involves other people in what may constitute a criminal offence.
It may also cause him to realise that if the contract has not been finalised during the currency of the present illegal

régime, any agreement which he may have struck would be subsequently unenforceable in the courts. It may also cause the State Corporation of Hungary to pause before it, too, tries to buy ferro-chrome through a third party, which is, under the terms of this Statutory Instrument, subject to the jurisdiction of it.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Why? Why?

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member asks why, and, thinking that I have not heard his intervention the first time, asks again. I will tell him why.
It is because as a result of this Statutory Instrument the normal enforce-ability which would flow from agreements, both as to delivery and payment, is no longer guaranteed by the courts. Therefore, if the view is taken that the future existence of the present régime is uncertain, and may either be in terms of weeks or months, there is a new element of hazard involved in the financial transaction, which may well cause a business man, even a State corporation—because sometimes they have business acumen—to pause and ask whether this is a safe economic proposition to pursue.
We do not know whether all these considerations will affect Angola, which is at present seeping oil over the border, and whether the same will happen—

Mr. Victor Goodhew: And Zambia.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not realised that Zambia is not covered by this Statutory Instrument and that it is a loyal member of the Commonwealth, which we are proud to support.

Mr. Goodhew: I was making the point that oil was seeping over the boundaries from Zambia to Rhodesia in return for coal. Perhaps this is something which the hon. Gentleman has not realised?

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member makes a very grave charge indeed if he is suggesting that the Government of Zambia, or, alternatively, agents acting with the knowledge of the Government of Zambia, are responsible for the export of oil, from whatever source, to assist the Rhodesian economy.
I concede at once that there may well be black marketeers. There are from every country. We have had experience of them even during time of war in this country. I am, however, sure that the hon. Member, loyal supporter of the Commonwealth that he is, would be the last to suggest that Zambia is deliberately seeking to profit from a black market the object of which is to get round the sanctions.

Mr. Goodhew: I was suggesting, in particular, that it was unfortunate that when Great Britain is trying, apparently, to prevent oil from getting into Rhodesia, oil which is sent from this country, at great expense to the taxpayer, through Zambia should find its way to Rhodesia. That seems to me to be rather nonsensical.

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Member is deploring any element of ineffectiveness in sanctions against Rhodesia, I wholeheartedly agree with him and I support him is every measure possible to make them as effective as possible against the rebel régime. No doubt, if there is a seepage through Zambia, he will regard it as his duty to make that information known to the Zambian authorities. I have no doubt that his views will be treated with the attention which they deserve in Zambia and that the President will be grateful to hear what his views are on that matter.
There are two matters in the Order which we should realise. First, in seeking to prohibit exports from Rhodesia, we must recognise that this is an expression of intention which is not likely to be enforceable in the criminal courts. This is not the first time. The precedent is not a very happy one. I suppose that the last occasion was the passing of the convention against genocide, which, we knew, was not enforceable, but was an expression of the sort of legal action which we intended to take in the future and in which the Attorney-General played a distinguished part in one of the trials.
The other matter which is a little unfortunate in the Order is the wide phraseology in paragraph 1 (3,b), to the effect that a person commits an offence who assists in the export or the manufacture of any product which he

has reason to believe that another person intends to…import into Southern Rhodesia".
This is a very wide term and offence, and I hope that the Attorney-General, or the Solicitor-General, will tell us a little more about it.

Sir F. Bennett: A few minutes ago, the hon. Member appeared to be against casting even slight doubt upon the effectiveness of the Order, which point I queried, concerning the State Corporation of Hungary. Is he addressing his remarks also to the dubiety of whether it would apply in that case?

Mr. Thorpe: I will gladly give way to the hon. Member again and I will gladly answer his question. I have not exactly grasped the purport of what he said.

Sir F. Bennett: I was merely trying to point out that a few moments ago the hon. Member appeared to think that the Order would be extremely effective even against gentlemen in Hungary. He now appears to be casting doubt upon exactly the same premise as he asserted earlier. How does he reconcile his two attitudes?

Mr. Thorpe: I shall be glad to clear up an obvious misconception on the part of the hon. Member. First, I believe that the Order will have the effect of causing persons who intend to trade to pause and think before doing so, because they might well be entering into an agreement which they would subsequently find unenforceable. That was the first limb of my argument. I think that I would take the hon. Gentleman with me on it.
The second point which I made, which was totally different, was that we are creating for the first time certain new criminal offences and that one of those offences is not merely exporting, or causing to be imported into Rhodesia, material or products, but participating in either the manufacture or export of any matter while having "reason to believe" that another person will import it into Rhodesia.
I was merely making the comment that I think that this is a very widely drawn phrase, and it is one in respect of which I am not altogether happy as a lawyer, because I believe that when we are drawing the limits of criminal


liability they must be easily definable and must be clear. I am merely suggesting that this is a very wide extension of criminal liability. It may be that the Law Officers will be able to say something about that in a moment. I was merely suggesting—I hope I take the hon. Gentleman with me on this—that this is a very wide extension indeed of criminal liability.
Those of us who, I think, represent the whole House, with a small exception, and who have supported sanctions so far have done so because, first, we recognise that the stupidity of Mr. Smith's action must be brought home to people in Rhodesia and expressed in economic terms; and secondly, because we are anxious at all costs to avoid bloodshed. I ask myself; how effective will this Statutory Instrument, in particular, be? Clearly, it is unenforceable over exporting goods from Rhodesia itself. I may be wrong. It may well be that we shall see a spate of prosecutions.
I am quite certain of one thing, that any cases brought before the courts in Rhodesia will be fairly and honourably tried in accordance with the judicial system which is one of the greatest institutions in Rhodesia today. The integrity of the judiciary is without question. The question is, however, how these matters would be brought to the courts, who would be the prosecutor, who would appear in the rôle of the D.P.P., whether they would be private prosecutions. That is another matter, but I doubt whether we shall see many prosecutions under this head.
What I would suggest to the Government is that these Orders in themselves—and this as much as the others—are not likely to have the full economic effect which the policy behind these Orders seeks to achieve, unless we have a Chapter VII resolution, a resolution in the United Nations, to back them up. I think that this is relevant to this Order. I would merely say to the Government that I do not accept the logic that because we invoke Article 41 we have, logically, to invoke Article 42. They are totally separate, and both are subject to the veto. We should make clear we put forward a resolution under the first, and are opposed to the second. I do not accept the suggestion that we cannot proceed under

Article 41 because its application would lead to application of Article 42.
This Order is the logical extension of the other Orders for which the House has voted in pursuance of the policy of a bloodless settlement of this dispute. What negotiations may take place, in what circumstances, at what time are outside the debate on this Order. No doubt, we shall have other opportunities to debate them. But once we have willed this policy of using economic pressures to cause a return to constitutional rule, then in my submission it is logical that we should vote for this Statutory Instrument tonight, and I hope we shall do that with unanimity among hon. Members on both sides of the House.

12 m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: At this comparatively late hour, I do not propose to repeat a lot of the arguments that hon. Members have already put forward.
This is a very sad debate, and it is most unfortunate that we have to discuss measures of restriction against one of the greater countries of our Commonwealth. It is for that reason that I regret very much that the spirit with which we are so accustomed from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) should have been used to its full tonight in saying the things that he did about the people who have gone from this country and other countries to Rhodesia, some quite recently and some quite a long time ago.
I have said before, and I said it to the Prime Minister, that when we discuss these matters we want to keep a very reasonable calm, because, at the backs of our minds, the objects of this type of Order must be that we can meet face to face with the people in that country. No puppet Government can do that. They must be people who can speak for the inhabitants of Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them]?"] All of them, and there are no people who are so contented and so happy as the coloured people of that country and none support the Government more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members disagree with that, all that I can say is that they are completely out of touch with events in that country.
We have to get down to discussions with the people there. If the Order assists in that, then let it be supported. But the stupidities that can follow from this type of Order are well illustrated in a case that I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
I know of a British subject, resident in Rhodesia and, I believe, married to a Rhodesian, who has come here and is unable to live on her own money, properly paid in dividends, but blocked in this country. As a result, we are paying her £9 9s. l0d. a week National Assistance, not a penny of which would she require if she could use her own money for her own purposes in this country. That is the type of thing that we have come to by passing this type of Order. The whole matter needs looking at very carefully. [Interruption.] I am afraid that a number of hon. Members opposite, making very uncalled for noises, did not hear what I said. I will repeat it.
A British subject with funds in this country, resident in this country now, is unable to draw those funds. We have to pay her £9 9s. l0d. a week National Assistance, because she cannot touch her own money for her own purposes here. If that is not nonsense, what is? [An HON. MEMBER: "Charge it to the Law Officers."] I shall not ignore such interruptions. It shows that hon. Members opposite do not mind spending public money for that type of stupidity.

Mr. William Hannan: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in just the opposite way, there are British citizens who now wish to come back from Rhodesia because of the Smith régime and who cannot recover money for the homes and businesses that they have sold in Rhodesia?

Mr. Doughty: The particular case that I have cited is just the other way round, because the letter which I proposed to read says that the Rhodesian Government are more sensible because they have allowed a certain amount of money to come over here.
I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) when he says that the Order will make clearer the position of people who propose trading with Rhodesia. It will do nothing of the sort. Those who have drafted the Order must be totally unaware of the

way that trade is done. Certainly, people will not trade directly with Rhodesia. If people wish to buy wheat, or whatever it is, they send to trading firms abroad. They do not ask where it comes from. They ask about the quality, the price, and matters of that sort, and that is not covered by this Order. If these sanctions last for too long, other countries will not enforce them for us.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Gentleman is much more versed in the law than I am. He has said that this will not deter any firms from buying, that they will go through their subsidiaries.

Mr. Doughty: I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. and learned Gentleman said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that those who were aware of commercial practice ought to be aware of the fact that firms which now cannot buy directly will buy from subsidiaries.

Mr. Doughty: I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. Thorpe: I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that, and many hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with me. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that Article 1 (3,b and c) deals with indirect purchases from Rhodesia, so the liability continues.

Mr. Doughty: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. I never used the word "subsidiary". I said that they buy from other countries and firms, and that they are not concerned with where the object comes from. They are concerned with quality and price. I did not use the word "subsidiary". I am well aware that if a person believes something to be an offence he may commit one if he does it, but if he does not ask, he does not know. He merely asks what is the price, and what is the quality. I never said the word imputed to me by the hon. Gentleman, as he will see from HANSARD tomorrow, and I ask him to read it.
These sanctions are unenforceable except and in so far as they relate to trade between this country and Rhodesia. They will not be supported for very long by other countries. Sanctions never work in peacetime, and other countries are


not interested in supporting them for long. We trade with Cuba, although the Americans ask us not to do so, and undoubtedly a similar position will arise with other countries as well.
The sooner we can get the negotiations going, and the sooner we can get a settlement of this whole unfortunate matter, the better. These Orders may bring the Rhodesians more into line, and make them more ready to talk, and it is for those reasons that I support this Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] But let it be clearly understood that I support it not for the purpose of bringing Rhodesia down to a state of chaos—I do not want that, but many hon. Members opposite seem to—but so that when the negotiations take place the Rhodesians may be in a more negotiable frame of mind, and so that we may bring to an end what is a most unfortunate, a most distressing, and very sad state of affairs within the British Commonwealth.
Let us remember that when we negotiate, points have to be given away on both sides, not on one side only, and I hope, therefore, that these negotiations will soon take place, and that this Order, and others which have gone before it, may be scraps of paper within a very short time.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I am very grateful to have the opportunity of speaking on this Order, because I think that it is important for us to consider precisely what effect this will have on the situation which exists in that tragic and unhappy country of Rhodesia.
There is one matter on which there is agreement between both sides of the House, and it is that legal government must be restored in that country, and that any and every step which is necessary should be taken towards that end. It is true that, after the unilateral declaration of independence, Her Majesty's Government imposed a number of sanctions, of which this Order is a continuation, and which had my wholehearted support—as, indeed, they had the support of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members. We all agreed that the Orders and the sanctions were necessary to ensure that the rule of law should be upheld. Of

course, it is intolerable to this House that we should ever allow a situation in which that rule is broken.
However, we must consider whether this is the right moment at which to strengthen the sanctions which we have so far imposed. As I have said, there were special considerations which caused the House to decide to impose the original sanctions. I believe that there were secondary considerations, which can be applied to this Order as well, namely, that there shall be ultimate African majority rule in Africa, that racial discrimination there shall end, that a proper standard of living shall be provided for all the peoples, that a full educational programme shall be inaugurated and that the rights of minorities, of Europeans or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Gentleman is widening the debate. He must come to the Order which we are discussing.

Mr. Bessell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was merely seeking to point the reasons why I believe that sanctions were first imposed and why this Order is required by Her Majesty's Government. This point has been made by several previous speakers and I am merely repeating what they have said, but in a slightly different form—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is no excuse for the hon. Gentleman getting out of order.

Mr. Bessell: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your Ruling.
I believe that the Order, like every other sanction which has been imposed by the Government, will be effective only if it has the support of every other country which trades with Rhodesia, and we have to be certain that the Order will be as effective as other sanctions have been. The Attorney-General gave no indication tonight that any other country is prepared to support us in this measure.
Until we can be certain of that, we cannot be certain what the effect of the Order will be upon the climate of opinion, both African and European, in Rhodesia itself.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It seems that the hon. Gentleman


is making the great error of not appreciating that there is an entirely different link between this country and Rhodesia, and that of Rhodesia with any other nation in the world, that Rhodesia is part of the Commonwealth. As a consequence of that, we have a special responsibility to Rhodesia. Surely, because we recognise that a treasonable act has taken place in Rhodesia, this Government are entitled to take all Measures they can, including this Order, to ensure that they return to constitutional government as early as possible.

Mr. Bessell: With great respect, that was not an intervention; it was a speech. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was aware that Rhodesia is a Commonwealth country. I have just been there, and I saw the Union Jack flying everwhere I went.
Of course we have a special responsibility, but it has been said repeatedly from the Treasury Bench that sanctions will be effective only if they are enforced by every other country trading with Rhodesia. That is why I question the wisdom of imposing a measure on which we have no assurance that it will be supported by other trading countries.
Secondly, I question whether this is the moment to impose further and more drastic sanctions on Rhodesia, at a time when it is possible that the objectives to which the Government, the Opposition and my party are committed might be achieved by other means. It might be wise at this moment to pause and to consider whether other means are not available and whether those means should not be tried in association with the Order.
While I was in Salisbury I had the opportunity of seeing the effect of sanctions so far. I will tell the House the impression which I gained from conversations with members of the illegal régime, with businessmen, with leaders of commerce and trade unionists, with African Nationalist leaders, with those opposed to the régime, with Government officials, with the Governor, with Sir Hugh Beadle and with people in all walks of life. My impression, at any rate a month ago, was that the effect of sanctions thus far had been marginal and that the important sanction, on oil, had had no decisive effect at that stage—and there is no evidence to suggest that it has had a decisive effect yet.
If this Order, coupled with the measures taken previously, could guarantee to end the present ugly and illegal situation in Rhodesia, I should have no doubts about supporting it. Indeed, I should do so gladly. I hope that when the Government enforce the Order they will ensure that every other possible step is taken to reach a peaceful and just solution on the lines which I will try to indicate within the rules of order, which restrict me very much.
History has shown that sanctions by themselves have never worked. It may well be that this time history will be confounded. While I was in Salisbury the mood of the Smith Government was one in which they were ready and anxious to negotiate with Her Majesty's Government, and that may well have been the result of the sanctions which had been imposed up to that time.

Mr. Rowland: Would the hon. Member say whether the Smith Government were prepared to negotiate on anything other than our initial acceptance of their independence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) would be out of order if he replied to that question.

Mr. Bessell: This places me in a difficult position, because I may not answer the question. The Chair has ruled that I may not do so. I suggest that the hon. Member was well aware when he asked the question that that would be the ruling of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I leave the House to judge that for itself. The Smith régime is anxious to bring an end to this impasse. If sanctions do not work—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Bessell: I will not give way. I am not going to be asked questions which because of the rules of order, I cannot answer.

Mr. Rowland: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to provoke questions which one cannot then ask?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Bessell: If the Order can be enforced and if, at the same time, there can be an attempt at negotiations—a means of bringing this tragedy to an end—the Order and those negotiations would, I am sure, have the support of all hon. Members. Is it possible for this to happen? It is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to negotiate direct with the illegal régime. That would be unconstitutional. It is not possible for Mr. Smith to negotiate through the Governor. But there could be an intermediary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is again getting away from what we are discussing.

Mr. Bessell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the Order creates further bitterness—if it makes the climate more difficult in Rhodesia and here and if it does not have the support of the other countries of the world—it will not only weaken our position but it will make ultimate negotiations more difficult for us and for the illegal régime. I therefore ask for a pause. If I were asked which way I would vote tonight, if a vote took place, I would vote for the Order, but I would add this rider: that I would do so in the hope that there would then be a genuine effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government to seek a means of negotiating which would humiliate neither the régime in Rhodesia nor create an impossible constitutional situation, for such a means exists.
If sanctions do not work Her Majesty's Government will be placed in an extremely difficult position. If the Order is ineffective they will have to decide whether or not to use force, and that will be a terrible decision to make.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that under no circumstances will they use force?

Mr. Bessell: I am, but if the sanctions and this Order in particular do not work, remembering that this Measure makes the sanctions 100 per cent. effective from the legislative point of view, what then? When I was in Salisbury there was no sign of them working. What is the alternative to using force? I believe that there is an alternative, as I have said—but I

will not develop that because I would be out of order. My earlier remarks will appear in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Has the hon. Gentleman noted the words in Article 1 (1,c) of the Order:
do any act calculated to promote the ex portation from Southern Rhodesia or the importation into Southern Rhodesia of any specified product"?
It is all very well for us to make debating points, but I am concerned about the people in Rhodesia, not only the supporters of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's intervention is becoming a speech.

Mr. Howard: What will be the result of that provision on all the people of Southern Rhodesia, Africans and Europeans?

Mr. Bessell: This is a valid point for one reason, which is that if there is an increase in bitterness, in tension and in mistrust, it becomes increasingly difficult, not only for us but for the African population and for the Commonwealth to find a means of reconciling these difficulties and bring about a peaceful solution. It is a peaceful solution with which I am ultimately concerned, and it is to ensure that the measures that have been taken by Her Majesty's Government shall be effective—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hear a cry of "Seig Heil!". Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

Mr. Bessell: I heard a cry of "Seig Heil!", Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I asked whether that was in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the observation. I deprecate all such remarks being passed across the House when someone is speaking.

Mr. Bessell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that what I have said may not arouse pleasure on all sides. It is now being suggested that there may be some difference of opinion between myself and my colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that there is any difference of principle, though there may be a slight difference


of emphasis. But if there is a slight difference of emphasis, neither I nor my colleagues are ashamed, and I do not think that it is wrong or improper that I should express it. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to discuss differences of opinion when there have been so many cracks and splinters within their own party.
I have asked tonight that when this Order is enforced by Her Majesty's Government, there should be a pause. If there had been such a pause when the two fatal shots were fired at Serajevo in June, 1914, two world wars might have been avoided.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The debate has now reached a point where for someone as unfamiliar as myself the line of order is drawn taut and narrow, so I will confine myself to just one or two points. I would first refer to an astonishing assumption that underlay some of the speeches from the other side that the political views of this House are always focused in a single beam of pure white light, when we know that there is the broad spectrum of opinion which is focused on only one requirement, and that is power. It is focused for many purposes on many occasions, but to deny that such a spectrum exists is utter nonsense.
I would confirm with all the emphasis at my command from my own experience in Rhodesia every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). I would refer to two specific points in the Order. The first is that it is a most extraordinary thing. It creates a form of occupational discrimination at the deliberate intent of the Government. The Prime Minister himself told us that it was the duty of soldiers and civil servants, and others in similar occupations, to carry on with their routine as best they might, but this Order states that those whose livelihood depends on economic activities—not the soldiers or the civil servants—are not to carry on with their livelihood as best they may. They are to lie down and commit economic suicide, and cut their own throats.
What is the basis of this occupational discrimination? Are Her Majesty's Government concerned with one class of

citizens in Rhodesia and not with the others? I regard this as a most fundamental point, and I should like to have the Attorney-General's comments on it.
Finally, I deal with a rather more serious point. Certainly this Order creates a new class of criminal. To the extent to which it will be effective, which in my opinion will be exceedingly limited, it will create a class of criminal whom historians with a slightly longer perspective than hon. Members opposite have defined in one word only. That class has been known as "patriot", and that type of criminality has been defined in successive revolutions and rebellions as patriotism. I should have thought that the experience of the House of Commons in creating in different places on the surface of the earth such patriotisms would have compelled it to pause and to show a little humility before launching another.

12.33 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I should like to make my position clear. I have never been to Rhodesia, I know no one in Rhodesia and, so far as I am aware, I have no direct financial interest in Rhodesia.
We are considering an Order in Council which will make it illegal for anyone to export from Rhodesia and illegal to import into Rhodesia. The powers are extraordinarily wide. These powers are given to the Secretary of State. This Order is in some respects retrospective and also delegates legislative powers to the Secretary of State. I do not want to go into a number of points on the Order because the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has covered them. This Order, however, is taking us one step further into an extraordinary world, an Alice in Wonderland world. The sort of expressions which the Attorney-General has used about Rhodesia on other occasions, "the dogs of rebellion" and "illegal rebellious treason" are extraordinarily unfortunate. I think that in future he may regret that he used those terms and expressions. These are the rebels with whom hon. Members on both sides of the House have discussed matters when they have gone to Rhodesia, yet this is treason which is being condemned here.
The Prime Minister said in an earlier stage of sanctions that they would not


be vindictive. What can be more vindictive than this Order? It is sweeping and covers everything. It delegates the powers and in this Order we have a vindictive sanction; it is 100 per cent. At the end of the road, whether it comes sooner or later, we shall have to talk with the authorities in Rhodesia. At present there is no one to talk to except Mr. Smith. I ask the Government, is that not the advice they are getting from the Governor? If we are going to negotiate with Mr. Smith, how are we going to do it? I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment. He has said that it is impossible to negotiate with Mr. Smith.

Mr. Ivor Richard: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You have in the course of the evening confined the debate to very strict limits and ruled out of order any discussion of the future pattern of negotiations either with the Smith régime or any other body which might arise in Rhodesia. It seems that the remarks of the hon. Member are directly out of order within your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I was being consulted at the moment and I did not hear the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham). I hope that he will keep to the Rulings which have been given earlier. I shall listen now.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you. I will simply repeat—this is the last thing I want to say in this debate—that the Secretary of State has said that he could not negotiate with Mr. Smith. Therefore, I say that we should accept the resignation of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to the debate. He knows that he is entirely out of order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am in the difficulty that great latitude was given to many hon. Members when you were not in the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that Mr. Speaker is in the Chair and is ruling. I hope, too, that invidious comparisons between occupants of the Chair will never be made.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the hon. and learned Gentleman must not pursue what he is saying.

Sir Knox Cunningham: And I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and have nothing further to say.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: shall severely curtail what I had wished to say, because others wish to speak. The Attorney-General said that the Order was not introduced prior to 20th January because the Government had not thought it would be necessary. My first question is: what reason have the Government to apprehend that this last measure will prove more effective than the measures previously introduced? Secondly, the Attorney-General said that the objective of the Order, as of earlier Orders, was the restoration of constitutional rule in Rhodesia. I hope that the Government spokesman will be able to reaffirm that the object of the Order is not to create chaos in Rhodesia, not to create famine in the land, but is, in the words of the Attorney-General, to help to restore constitutional rule in Rhodesia. If that is the Government's objective and if they can satisfy the House that this last measure is likely to achieve that result, I feel that the House may be able to give the Order its support.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This should have been a serious debate on one Order, but the one thing which has struck me throughout the debate is that the only person who has taken the Order seriously has been the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It did not appear to me that the Attorney-General was treating the Order seriously. He explained its provisions quizzically and delightfully, as though he were applying for membership of the tall story club. I am thinking of his suggestion that if a contract is made between a business man in Rhodesia and a foreign purchaser the foreign purchaser will have no right to the goods and the business man in Rhodesia will have no right to the money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave other examples.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) gave a constructive example. How precisely is this provision to be enforced? For example, if the State Corporation of Hungary manages in some way or other to acquire chrome in Rhodesia, precisely how do the Government intend to settle the legal question? Will they try to take steps to have the chrome brought back? What will happen to the money which has been paid for the chrome? How will this problem and the many others which have arisen or which will arise from the Order be solved?
The Order will be impossible to bring into effect. I hope that the Attorney-General can give us one or two examples of the kind of thing which might arise from the Order and state precisely what he intends to do about them. If we are to consider the Order seriously we must consider some of the examples that could arise.
Article 3 is even more unusual. Are we to take this seriously as well? In effect it says that anyone working in Rhodesia on goods that might be exported—and almost everything produced there is exported—is aiding and abetting an illegal act and might be liable to two years' imprisonment or £500 fine. Are the Government seriously suggesting that as from 20th January all work should have ceased in Rhodesia and that nobody should do anything or sell anything? This is the implication in the Order. If we are to treat the Order seriously we must bear these things in mind.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Will the hon. Member vote against it?

Mr. Taylor: This is why I feel that the Order is not worth taking seriously in any way. How is it to be enforced? What are the Government's intentions concerning trade and industry in Rhodesia? We have had no examples given or any satisfactory explanation. It is argued that the Order will be effective, but I fail to see that, or how it will be applied.
As for the Statutory Instrument itself, I was warned before I first became a Member of Parliament of the amount of delegated legislation that comes before the House and the amount of power

given up by the House in one way or another. On the same day as this Order No. 41 was made, we had an Order dealing with chrome made under powers contained in Article 1 of this Order. It is most unusual that today we should be discussing an Order which came into effect on 20th January and that the powers which we are now discussing were used on 20th January to bring in the chrome Order. This is a most unusual use of powers, although the enabling Bill was very wide. I feel that this Order is unusual, unworkable and unenforceable, and I do not think that anybody can regard it seriously.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: It is worth while to intervene briefly if only to say how odd I thought was the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). The strangest things happen to these eager beavers who travel to Rhodesia. I do not know the explanation. I know that Noel Coward says something about the mid-day sun, but it would be quite improper if I were to pursue this at further length.

Mr. Manuel: Interesting, though.

Mr. Shepherd: It might be interesting.
I shall support the Order, although I doubt whether it is wise to bring it forward at this time, for a reason which I shall mention in a moment. I was surprised at the other Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who seemed to query the integrity of British firms and their subsidiaries. My understanding is, and I hope that the Attorney-General will say it, that the Government have received the utmost co-operation from British firms in Rhodesia in an extremely difficult situation both for firms here and in Rhodesia.
At the risk of being slightly out of order, I must say that I was grateful for the solicitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), who felt rather aggrieved that we had been in trouble over voting for oil sanctions. More pepole wrote praising me for doing so than condemning me. In any case I am able with less risk to offend rather more of my constituents than my right hon. Friend.
I have some doubts as to the wisdom of bringing forward the Order at this


time. I think that the whole process associated with sanctions has been accompanied by too much optimism and too much anxiety. I have always said that sanctions are not likely to have their effect within twelve months of their commencement. The House, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made a mistake in believing that sanctions are capable of bringing about a rapid result. I have never thought this to be the case. I do not think it now. I think that it has been a grave tactical error to create the belief that this was possible.
After all, people who have made an attempt to seize something for themselves are not going to give it up without some effort to retain it. If a tug-of-war is going on, it is not surprising that both sides are pulling. It is not a remarkable situation. I hope the House will try to get away from the over-weaning anxiety to get an immediate result from sanctions and realise that this is, of necessity, a long term job and will rest confident in the certainty that the steps that have already been taken short of this Order are sufficient to achieve the purpose most of us have in mind.

12.47 a.m.

The Attorney-General: The House will not expect me at this late hour to traverse all the matters which have been raised during the debate. But I say at once to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that the Government recognise the loyal co-operation of British businessmen and companies in the difficult task we have had to face in dealing with the rebellion in Rhodesia, and we shall, of course, continue to consult the affected interests in any future measures that we may find it necessary to embark upon in returning constitutional rule to Rhodesia.
There are one or two specific matters arising from the Order which the House will expect me to deal with. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked about the power to be given to the Secretary of State to make Regulations. He wanted to know what was intended to be included in any such Regulations. The purpose of that power is to enable the Secretary of State to permit certain transactions to be carried out which would otherwise be

forgiven—I hope a slip of the tongue is permitted at this hour—which would otherwise be forbidden.
For example, it would give him power to permit the importation into Rhodesia on humanitarian grounds of a particular consignment of a specific product or permit the completion of a contract entered into in good faith before the ban, where this would not give any assistance to the illegal régime and where there would be no risk of the main object of the Order being circumvented.
It is already contrary to our exchange and export controls for British firms to export to Rhodesia via third countries. The use of a South African agent in this context is therefore illegal.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for answering these questions and remind him that " to err is human, to forgive divine. "

The Attorney-General: To err is, indeed, human, but the House must recognise that we are dealing with rebellion. I make no apology for the language I have used in the various debates on Rhodesia. Indeed, hearing the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) repeat some of it, I was amazed at my moderation.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I sincerely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be amazed some months hence.

The Attorney-General: We shall see, some months hence.
This is not a trivial matter with which we are dealing. Here is a small section of a community which is engaged upon a rebellion in deliberate defiance of the House and the Government and has done so in conditions causing misery and suffering to result from that rebellion. Those who aid and abet the rebellion are committing criminal offences, and it is right that I as Attorney-General should quite firmly designate that aiding and assisting to be criminal conduct. I have been induced to move slightly away from the terms of the Order, but it is proper that I should say those things in the light of the criticisms of me by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North.

Sir Knox Cunningham: South.

The Attorney-General: North or South, the criticism is entirely unjustified.

Sir Knox Cunningham: That is a matter of opinion.

The Attorney-General: The answer to the detailed question of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) is that there is abundant precedent for the use of the words in Article 1 (3, b)—
…or has reason to believe that another person intends to export from or import into Southern Rhodesia.
There are many criminal offences where those words are used, and it is imperative that provision should be made not only for a direct sale but also by using a third party to achieve avoidance of the Order.
In dealing with these sanctions, the aim of the Government throughout has been to get all countries to stop importing Rhodesian goods. We now also want to stop them from exporting goods to Rhodesia. As I said in opening the debate, in general we are getting good co-operation from countries in bringing imports from Rhodesia under control, but there are liable to be gaps or weaknesses and the purpose of the Order is to put us into the position of being able, when the circumstances require, to reinforce the import embargoes which we are trying to persuade people to impose, or to plug possible gaps in them.
For instance, with the chrome Order, it was found necessary to assist friendly Governments, particularly that of the United States which had no power to ban imports, to carry out the policy which the United Nations has decided upon in regard to economic sanctions in respect of Rhodesia. I was asked why there was delay in dealing with the tobacco sanction. The answer is that the 1966 auctions have not yet started and the Government took action as soon as we had substantial evidence of possible speculation by foreign purchasers.
I am satisfied that the machinery and provisions of the Order are essential for the purpose which the Government have resolutely in mind, namely, to bring this rebellion in Rhodesia to an end as soon as possible and to restore decency and constitutional rule to that country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Exports and Imports) Order, 1966, dated 20th January, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CORPORAL BARRY MORGAN (DEATH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I wish to raise the case of Junior Corporal Barry Morgan, who was drowned in the Thames on 18th June, 1964, at the age of 18, in the course of an Army canoeing exercise. At the inquest a verdict of accidental death was recorded. This verdict was entirely proper and on the evidence no other verdict could have been recorded. However, serious charges have been made which were not within the province of the inquest to decide. There has been no inquiry into these charges, and an inquiry has been refused by the Army authorities.
These charges are, first, that there was inadequate supervision on and before the day of the accident, and secondly, that Barry Morgan was improperly coerced into remaining a member of the canoe club when, as is not denied, he wished to resign from it. The refusal of an inquiry into these charges is, in my view, a serious denial of justice. Was there proper supervision? Should Barry Morgan have been permitted to take part in the exercise on that day in the conditions then prevailing—it was raining hard—and in a canoe which, on some evidence, would have required a very experienced canoeist to control it? According to the officer in charge, Lieut. Brown, giving evidence at the inquest, Morgan had been a member of the canoe club at least since the previous summer, in other words for at least nine months.
This figure was confirmed to me in a letter of 31st May, 1965, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), when Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army. Corporal Hyland, a friend of Barry Morgan, who claims to have been


responsible for getting Morgan to join the canoe club, has said in a signed statement that Morgan had only been a member for about two months. What are the facts? Did Morgan have enough experience or did he not? I have given my hon. Friend notice that I would like an answer to that question. Was Barry Morgan a sufficiently good swimmer? He only had a 25-yard certificate, and Hyland said that he was a weak swimmer, who was inclined to panic when tipped into the water. Members of the canoe club were required to be able to swim 50 yards in light clothing.
The only evidence that he was a sufficiently good swimmer is that of Lieut. Brown, the quality of whose supervision is under question here. Learned counsel, whose advice was sought as to whether Morgan's parents could bring an action against Lieut. Brown or the Army authorities, commented:
I am not prepared to accept the evidence of Lieut. Brown given at the inquest…that Barry was a 'very good swimmer,' and so far as canoeing was concerned, 'one of the more experienced'.
This was on the basis of reading the evidence in the files, which I understand my hon. Friend has seen. Even more important was whether Barry was improperly coerced into remaining a member of the canoe club when, as is accepted on all sides, he wished to resign, following an incident in which his canoe capsized. In his signed statement, Hyland says that in the presence of other men, including a captain, Lieut. Brown accused Morgan of being "chicken" and "yellow" because he wished to resign. Hyland also says that Morgan told him on the day of his death, in the presence of another N.C.O., that he had tried to get out of the canoe exercise and that Lieut. Brown had threatened to put him on a charge. It is accepted by the Army authorities that Morgan was entitled to resign if he so wished. They do not deny that he wished to resign. It is alleged that he was improperly coerced into not resigning.
These are serious charges, and Morgan's parents wished to bring a civil action again, against Lieut. Brown, and/or, the Army authorities, for breach of duty but they were prevented from doing so by the issue of a certificate by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance saying

that the death was due to service for pension purposes. This has stopped any proceedings. Notwithstanding, the questions remain. There should be an enquiry, either in public or in the Army, to determine the answer to these accusations. There has been no such inquiry. All there has been is an inquiry into what additional safeguards, if any, should be instituted in the future. I have not been permitted to see the report of that inquiry. As learned counsel put it in his advice given on 13th November, 1964:
In my opinion, there is upon the information available at present a prima facie case against Lieut Brown. He knew that Barry wished to resign from the club, yet there is evidence that he taunted him for his cowardice and in the end, in effect, if not in law, ordered him on to the river in a difficult canoe in bad conditions. I consider that this unhappy case merits, however, more inquiry from the evidential point of view.
There has been no such inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells me that the inquest constituted such an inquiry. He states that as questions embodying these accusations were put to Lieut. Brown at the inquest, and the accusations were denied by him and were not pursued by the Morgan family's legal representatives or by the coroner, no further inquiry is necessary. The Government take their stand on the inquest.
But these charges were not investigated at the inquest. The inquest took place on 23rd June, five days after the accident. By that time, no proper investigation had been made into Hyland's accusations. Indeed, although he had mentioned his views to Morgan's father, he had not yet been seen by the Morgan family solicitors, nor had he made any statement. Subsequently to the inquest he made a signed statement. The truth or falsehood of the charges which he makes in that signed statement has never been investigated by the Army authorities. '
Not only was the inquest not used; it could not have been used as an investigation of this sort of accusation. I have been advised by the Morgan family solicitors that if an attempt had been made at the inquest to substantiate the accusations by calling Hyland and the other relevant witnesses, this would almost certainly not have been permitted by the coroner. An inquest is an inquiry into the cause of death, not into blame. In


short, the inquest could not have been used as an inquiry into these facts. This advice has since been confirmed to be by a barrister.
The solicitors representing the Morgan family at the inquest certainly did not abandon their line of questioning because they were satisfied with Lieutenant Brown's answers. On the contrary, they state in a letter of 24th June, 1964:
Our impression was that this line of questioning was disturbing to this witness and it may well be that there is greater truth in the allegation than he was prepared to admit.
However, let us suppose for a moment that contrary to the legal advice which I have received, the inquest could have been used for an inquiry into these charges. In fact, it was not so used. Hyland and the other possible witnesses were not called. Surely, in the interest of the Army, an inquiry should be held. The truth or falsehood of these charges was never tested at the inquest. Why have the Army authorities not investigated these charges?
In a letter of 5th December, 1965, I asked my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for the following categorical assurances. First, that there had been an inquiry into Hyland's allegations at which Hyland's gave evidence and that the inquiry was satisfied that these allegations were untrue. Secondly, that the various people who were in the van when, according to Hyland, Lieutenant Brown used the words "chicken" and "yellow" in relation to Barry Morgan were interviewed at the inquiry and denied that such words were used.
My hon. Friend replied on 25th January, 1966:
I am unable to give such assurance since the allegations to which you refer were, in fact, considered by the coroner at the inquest.
That reply is totally unsatisfactory. The coroner did not consider the allegations. To have done so would have been outside his terms of reference. Neither did he hear the witness upon whose allegations the charges were based or hear the other witnesses who could have confirmed or denied Hyland's charges.
The position, therefore, is that there has been an accident resulting in death. Serious charges stood upon the record and have not been investigated. It is alleged that there were improper coercion and inadequate supervision. There

is evidence easily available which could be used to test these serious allegations. Or does my hon. Friend not consider these allegations serious? No question of security is involved, yet the Undersecretary of State puts me off with the suggestion that an inquest held five days after the accident, in which these charges were not investigated, and in which the evidence, even if available so soon after the accident, would almost certainly have been inadmissible, is an adequate inquiry into these charges.
I have made clear from the start of the long correspondence in which I have been engaged with two Under-Secretaries of State that I do not claim to know the truth of the charges. They may be true, but they may be false. What is certainly true is that they should be properly inquired into. The nature of these charges has been known to my hon. Friends for at least a year. I ask for an inquiry both as a matter of justice, and for the reputation of the Army, which deserves a better defence than my hon. Friends have yet provided.

1.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In bringing this issue before the House this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is seeking to reopen inquiries into a fatal accident which happened a year and eight months ago. I do not suppose that this long interval has done much to lessen the grief of the parents of Junior Corporal Barry Morgan. If I thought that anything could be done to help, or to clear up genuinely unsatisfactory features of this case, I should of course, be very ready to do so, but I have as yet no reason to think that the inquiries which my hon. Friend is asking me to pursue could serve any such purpose. My predecessor and I have explained to him the reasons why we hold this view, and there has been a considerable correspondence. I must now for the record repeat those explanations to the House.
My hon. Friend has told how Corporal Morgan was drowned in the Thames near Shepperton while taking part in a trial over the Army canoe championship course. Perhaps I should begin, therefore, by saying something—because this has arisen in the correspondence—about


canoeing in the Army, the extent to which is a duty and the extent to which is a voluntary recreation. Hon. Members will realise that physical training and exercise play a large part in the programme of boys' units. There is a wide choice of games and sports, ranging from the traditional games on playing fields to some of the sports which have developed and become fashionable in recent years. As regards the element of compulsion, the position is that boys must take part in sport of some kind. That is compulsory, but the choice of sport is voluntary, and the emphasis is on encouragement rather than compulsion once a boy has taken up the game or recreation of his choice. Canoeing is very popular in boys' units, and is encouraged because of its value for leadership and confidence training.
The position, therefore, is that when a boy soldier is canoeing he is on duty because it is part of his training to take part in a sport; but at the same time canoeing itself is not compulsory, because he may transfer to some other sport if he wishes, and he cannot be compelled to continue as a canoeist if he does not wish to. This point has been raised before, and I felt I had to make it clear tonight.
I should now turn to what we know about the accident itself and the events leading up to it. Corporal Morgan was a proficient canoeist. He had competed in national events and had attended a weekend course organised by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. It was a rule in this unit that all canoeists must be able to swim 50 yards in light clothing, and Corporal Morgan had passed these minimum requirements. My hon. Friend has questioned what has been said about Corporal Morgan's experience. It was given in evidence at the inquest that he had been a canoeist for about nine months. This was repeated at the board of inquiry. I have had a further check made of the unit records, and I can confirm that he joined the canoe club in the spring term of 1963. There is no doubt about that, and I do not know where my hon. Friend obtained his contrary information.
Similarly with swimming: at the inquest, the officer said that he had himself conducted the 50 yards swimming test

which is compulsory before membership of the canoe club, and that he had also seen Corporal Morgan swim 50 yards at Southampton Baths.
On 18th June, 1964, a party of 17 apprentices from the Junior Tradesmen's Regiment, Army Catering Corps, went to Chertsey for a trial run over the championship course. They were in the charge of the officer, Lieutenant Brown, who was responsible for canoeing in the regiment. He himself had been a canoeist for some six years and had passed the instructor's examination of the British Canoe Union. At Chertsey, the river was high and it was raining hard, but the water was calm and there was no wind. So that, although conditions were not pleasant, they were not dangerous or difficult from the point of view of the exercise. A party was made up for a practice run in three double and three single canoes.
Corporal Morgan, as one of the more experienced boys, was put in a single canoe of the type known as a racing kayak. He was wearing light clothing and P.T. shoes, and wore a life-jacket of a type approved by the Ministry of Transport. The jacket is designed to be worn like a waistcoat, but Corporal Morgan had folded the jacket and wore it tied round his waist. This was customary among some canoeists, who found that the jacket chafed and hampered movement if it was worn over the shoulders. Corporal Morgan had previously used racing kayaks of a similar type, though he was using that particular canoe for the first time that afternoon.
The race was started by the officer in charge, who watched the party disappear round a bend in the river and then set off in the truck with the rest of the apprentices to meet them at Shepperton Lock. At Shepperton, he saw that Corporal Morgan's canoe was missing, and walked upstream with four members of his party until he saw the canoe floating upside down. It had also been seen by two people living on Pharoah's Island, who had launched a boat. The officer swam to the canoe but could find no trace of Corporal Morgan, whose body was recovered early that evening by the police close to the spot where the canoe had capsized. Corporal Morgan's life-jacket was missing, and was never recovered.
An inquest was held at Chertsey on 23rd June, five days after the accident. The officer was closely questioned by the coroner about all details of the race, the preparations made for it, the condition of the river, Corporal Morgan's experience as a canoeist, and every circumstance which might explain how the accident happened. The officer was also examined by the legal representative of the boy's family. A verdict of accidental death was returned by the coroner, and nothing emerged from the inquest to show why the canoe capsized or, what is perhaps even more mysterious, why a young and fit apprentice, lightly clad and a reasonable swimmer, should have drowned when he fell out of the boat.
I should perhaps add that there is a standard drill to be followed after capsizing whereby the canoeist does not attempt to right his boat but simply catches hold of a rope which is provided for that purpose and remains with the canoe, which is buoyant even though it is capsized. Nothing has emerged to show why none of these precautions succeeded, or why Corporal Morgan should have drowned.
I will turn now to the question which is the real reason for this debate; that is the allegation that Corporal Morgan was compelled or goaded into continuing as a canoeist when he wanted to give it up. What I can tell the House about it is taken from evidence at the inquest, and I should say at once that I have no information about this aspect of the accident which has not already been given in open court. It was not dealt with by the Army's board of inquiry.

Mr. Dell: Is my hon. Friend saying that he has not seen Corporal Hyland's statement?

Mr. Rees: I am saying that I have not seen Corporal Hyland's statement. I will come back to that in a moment.
After any serious accident a formal Board of Inquiry is held with the main purpose of finding out what happened, and seeing what lessons should be learned. In other words, the Board will recommend changes in safety precautions or standing orders, or propose modifications to equipment or anything which its inquiries show to be desirable to avoid repetition of the accident. It is a purely military and domestic proceeding, and

does not usurp in any way the function of an inquest. As I say, it was not dealt with by the Army Board of Inquiry, nor has there been any separate investigation about it. So far as the Army is concerned, and so far as I am concerned, this is an entirely open matter which was brought out at the inquest and disposed of.
When the coroner had completed a very thorough examination of the officer in charge of the canoeing party, the legal representative of Corporal Morgan's father asked him about the boy's wish to resign from the club. The officer told the court that Corporal Morgan had been on a canoe rolling course organised by the British Canoe Union. He had not liked it, and had told the officer that he wanted to resign. He was thought, however, to be a very keen member of the club, and the officer had asked him to reconsider and had given him time to think it over, suggesting that it would be pointless to give up after all his experience.
Questions about coercion were then put to the officer by the solicitor. In reply, he pointed out, correctly, that he was not in a position to order anyone to continue in a sport. He then categorically denied having called the boy's courage in question. The words "yellow" and "chicken"—which my hon. Friend has quoted—were put to "the officer, and he denied quite clearly that he had used such words to the apprentice. He said that he would not normally use that type of phrase, and that he had not done so on this occasion. The solicitor also put it to him that there had been an allegation or indication that the boy's courage was being called into account, and he denied this suggestion categorically. There was no ambiguity about this evidence. It was a firm denial, on oath, that there had been any order, or threat, or improper coercion. The coroner did not take up any of these questions, and there was a verdict of accidental death.
My Department's correspondence with my hon. Friend began with the technical question whether Corporal Morgan had been on duty at the time of his death, and when my hon. Friend was satisfied about that he continued with the question of Corporal Morgan's ability as a swimmer.
But in June of last year my hon. Friend said that the main point was whether


Corporal Morgan had been coerced and threatened into continuing in the Canoe Club. It appears that this information came from another boy in the unit, and on the strength of it my predecessor was asked to re-open the inquiries. I cannot say how this other boy's allegations were originally made. The proper course would have been for him to take any complaint to his Commanding Officer. Nor can I say why the boy was not asked to give evidence at the inquest, if his story was known at that time, as it apparently was. I should have thought the inquest to be the proper place to bring out any matters of this kind, not through suggestions by solicitors to the main witness, but by direct evidence if it was known to be available.
My hon. Friend has said tonight that the family had only a general indication of this evidence at that time, and that its precise nature was not established until after the inquest. I think that that is correct. I accept that. But enough was known for the solicitor to put precise questions to the officer, and to impute actual words to him, words which are the crux of the allegations. These suggestions were made and were denied. The coroner had the advantage of hearing the officer's evidence, and accepted it without remark.
I wish to make my attitude about this quite clear to my hon. Friend and to the House. In my view, on all the evidence avilable to me, this young officer acted throughout with competence, and in accordance with his experience and with standing orders. Nothing to his discredit emerged from the inquest or the Board of Inquiry, the purpose of which I have explained this evening. The allegation that he taunted Corporal Morgan to his death was put to him and was firmly denied on oath. I have not the slightest intention of asking among the other boys more than 18 months after the accident to try to find some indication that the officer had lied. Even to begin such inquiries would imply mistrust when I have no reason to doubt him in any way at all.
My hon. Friend has made accusations which could cost the officer his reputation, his honour—

Mr. Dell: I have made no accusations. I have stated what the case is as pre

sented to me in a sworn statement by Corporal Hyland. I have specifically said that I do not know whether these charges are true or false, but that they should be inquired into.

Mr. Rees: I will come to the question of the sworn statement, because—

Mr. Dell: Signed statement.

Mr. Rees: —signed statement in a moment. Statements which can be carried to all parts of the country have been made here tonight, in the privilege of the House, so that the officer is deprived—I know that my hon. Friend realises this—of any means of redress.
My hon. Friend implies that he has evidence which I have not seen. If that is so and he wishes to send it to me, I shall consider it—

Mr. Dell: Mr. Dell rose—

Mr. Rees: If there is something substantial and corroborated and there is good reason why it was not brought to the authorities at the time, I shall, of course, be willing to look at it.

Mr. Dell: I have referred to Corporal Hyland's statement in the course of this correspondence continually. I have indicated to my hon. Friend and to his predecessor that I am willing to put all the evidence I have at their disposal, but I assumed that they had this evidence. If my hon. Friend is now saying that he has not seen Corporal Hyland's statement, how does he account for the fact that he read letters from me quoting from this statement, without asking to see the full statement? It seems to me that the position of the Under-Secretary of State is quite impossible.

Mr. Rees: I cannot accept that. If there is evidence which was not presented, it was not put through the normal channels. I have not seen that. If there is something substantial and corroborated and there is good reason why it was not brought to the authorities at the time, I shall, of course, be willing to look at it. But I must make it clear that I cannot take up anything which is vague or lacking in substance. I make this further point. If the evidence is put to me, I will look at it. Failing this evidence, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the situation as it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past One o'clock.